Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BOURNEMOUTH AND DISTRICT WATER BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

DEE AND CLWYD RIVER BOARD BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]

LIVERPOOL EXTENSION BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

ROYAL ALBERT HALL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION Bill [Lords]

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

PETITION

PART-TIME FIREMEN (INCOME TAX)

Mr. Henry Hopkinson: I desire to present to the House a humble Petition on behalf of the part-time retained firemen of the fire brigades of England and Wales. It bears 11,237 signatures.
The Petition states that these firemen receive annual retaining fees on which they pay Income Tax. They also receive certain other fees for responding to fire calls, referred to by Statute as "fire call attendance and turn-out fees," which are also subject to Income Tax.
The Petitioners point out that their services are given at any time of the day or night at instant notice in the interests of the public and are in no way connected with their normal occupations. They assert that the hardship caused by the payment of Income Tax on the "fire call attendance and turn-out fees" is leading to the dissolution of the part-time retained firemen's service.
The Petition concludes with this Prayer:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that by virtue of the public and humanitarian services for which they are received, the said small payments may be by statute exempted from taxation, and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Claims (Time Limit)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of National Insurance if she will ask the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which is now reviewing the time limits for claiming insurance benefits, to include in their survey the operation of Regulation 18 of Statutory Instrument, 1948, No. 1417, which deals with the refund of contributions paid in error.

The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I do not think I can ask the Committee to extend the scope of their investigations to include this entirely fresh topic at this stage I am, however, keeping a close watch on the operation of this Regulation and if the hon. Member has in mind any case affected by the time limit perhaps he will let me have particulars.

Mr. Russell: Would the right hon. Lady bear in mind that no private firm which had overcharged a contributor in this way would possibly fail to pay back the contributions? Would she not look into this again? May I send her a case of which her Department has already had notice?

Dr. Summerskill: I shall be only too happy to consider any case which the hon. Gentleman has, but there is no substantial evidence that the two years' time limit is regarded as unreasonable.

Captain Duncan: When will the Committee report?

Dr. Summerskill: That is another question, which is not to do with this time limit.

Seasonal Workers

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether, in view of the Insurance Commissioners' decision


in the case of Mrs. A. Bridges, Wiggenhall, St. Germans, classified as a seasonal worker, she will review the cases of all other women farm workers whose conditions of work and unemployment are similar and who have not received unemployment benefit under the Seasonal Workers' Regulations.

Dr. Summerskill: I do not think that any question of reviewing other cases arises. The decision referred to turned on the facts of the particular case and does not appear to establish any new principle.

Mr. Dye: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that, on the same farm, there are women whose conditions of work and time of unemployment are precisely the same as those of the lady referred to in the Question? How can she, as a lady, make chalk of one and cheese of another of women who are working and living side by side? Surely if their conditions are the same there should be the same chance to review the cases.

Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that a new principle had been established and that I should apply it to all seasonal workers throughout the country. It may be that there are one or two workers on the same farm whose conditions might conform to those of this woman, but that is a coincidence. No new principle has been established.

Mr. Dye: Will those cases be reviewed?

Dr. Summerskill: Every case which comes before the local committee will, of course, be considered on its merits.

Mr. Dye: Can they make an appeal, then?

Dr. Summerskill: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a local appeal tribunal.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Agricultural Land

Mr. P. Bartley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he proposes to take to implement the considered view of the Committee on Mining Subsidence that agricultural land now held by the

National Coal Board should be transferred to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): The main purpose of the proposals made by the Turner Committee was to ensure, as far as possible, that agricultural land affected by mining subsidence should not be permanently damaged. It would not be practicable to introduce legislation for this purpose without dealing also with the other recommendations which the Committee made. I am afraid that I see no early prospect of bringing in a Bill.

Mr. Bartley: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Coal Board, which, rightly, is concerned with coal production, is at least equally concerned with using agricultural land to the best advantage in the national interest?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, it does have great interest in it.

Colonel Clarke: Does the Minister recollect that in paragraph 68 of its Annual Report the Coal Board said that this practice has been roundly condemned by the National Farmers' Union on the ground that it leads to bad farming, and that all concerned with an increase of agricultural production throughout the country also condemn it? Will he consider this again?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Consultations are going on between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Coal Board on the matter.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Are consultations going on with the Secretary of State for Scotland for the same purpose?

Mr. Noel-Baker: So far as I know they are.

Colonel Clarke: Will the Minister also go into cases, if any, where the Coal Board is farming the land itself, because that is equally likely to lead to abuse? It should stop.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will inform me of any case I will certainly go into it.

Oil Refinery, Caribbean

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps are being taken to expand oil refining capacity in British Caribbean territories.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Trinidad is the only British territory in the Caribbean where refining is done. During the last three years, the Trinidad Leaseholds Company has increased the output of its refinery at Point-a-Pierre by about one third; it is now about 3,250,000 tons a year. The plant is being modernised and a catalytic cracking unit is being put up. When this work is done the plant will produce a wide range of high quality products.

Mr. Erroll: Is any consideration being given to establishing refineries in other British West Indian islands to refine oil from Venezuela and other Gulf territories?

Mr. Noel-Baker: There are, in fact, British controlled company refineries in Venezuela and Curacao and Shell have a refinery in Trinidad; but the Companies now prefer to erect refineries near the point of consumption.

Damage-Free Leases

Mr. Bartley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what action he proposes to take to implement the recommendation of the Committee on Mining Subsidence in regard to the prohibition of the practice of damage-free leases or tenancies in respect of farms owned by the National Coal Board.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The Turner Committee recommended that existing damage-free leases should run their course. So far as I am aware the National Coal Board has made no new damage-free leases, since it took over the mines.

Colonel Clarke: Does the Minister recollect that the Committee also recommended that no fresh leases should be given and that the land should revert to agriculture?

Mr. Noel-Baker: As I said, so far as I know the Coal Board has made no new leases of that sort.

Petrol Coupons

Mr. Michael: Astor asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why petrol coupons are once again being printed; and for which particular period.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Coupons for petrol rationing have been printed as an insurance against any future emergency that

may arise. They do not, therefore, relate to any specific period.

Mr. Astor: Can the Minister say, if these coupons were printed last May, why an official of his Ministry, when challenged then, said, "There is no question of petrol returning to the ration"? Can he say what is the likelihood, or the degree of probability, of petrol being rationed again this summer, and, if not, what has been the cost, the amount of paper used and the number of people employed in printing the coupons?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. Gentleman can judge as well as I can the danger of the international situation, which might cause a return of petrol rationing. The quantity of paper used was very small, and this is obviously a reasonable precaution which the Government ought to take.

Heating

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power on what grounds 24th April was fixed as the day for issuing his instructions for cutting-off heating; to what classes of undertakings these instructions were sent; and why decisions on a matter of this kind are not left in the hands of the managements of individual establishments.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: With respect, I think the hon. Member must have been misinformed. No such instructions have been issued by my Department.

Miss Ward: Can the Minister say whether, in this "highly co-ordinated Government," and as 24th April was the date sent out by the Ministry of Transport to the railways by which to cut off all heating, they did, in fact, consult the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It was entirely their decision. I gave them no advice at all.

Miss Ward: Did they not know anything about the shortage of coal?

Opencast Mining, Worcestershire

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how far opencast coal mining projects in the parishes of Bayton, Mamble, Pensax, Rock and Abberley, in Western Worcestershire, are to be abandoned in favour of schemes for the underground gasification of coal seams in that area.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: There is no connection between the present prospecting for the opencast production of coal in Western Worcestershire and the proposed experiments for underground gasification. The seams on which the experiments would be made are at depths below the normal range of opencast work.

Mr. Nabarro: May we deduce from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the contingency may arise of opencast coal mining and gasification work being conducted simultaneously on the same site?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that highly improbable.

Mr. Baldwin: Before the nationalisa-of coal, there was an underground colliery operating at Bayton. When that colliery was closed the miners offered to work it and mine a guaranteed amount of coal per week. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if they had been allowed to do so, they would have been able to provide coal for the district over a very wide area?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have looked into these cases, and it always turns out that the closure of pits means more coal.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: How is that?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Because the miners are used elsewhere, where the output per man shift is much higher.

Industrial Coal Consumers' Council

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power on what occasions and in what way the Industrial Coal Consumers' Council has been of use to consumers.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the three annual Reports of the Industrial Coal Consumers' Council, which have been presented to Parliament, and which provide ample evidence of the way in which the Council is safeguarding the interests of consumers. The fourth Report will be published in a few weeks' time.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the fact that these Reports do not contain any comfort at all to the consumer, could we have more concrete evidence about what the Coal Consumers' Council actually

does for the consumers, which information I asked for recently in the House?

Mr. Noel-Baker: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will study the Reports he will see that the Council has dealt with the questions of price, stocks, service to industrialists, land sale charges and complaints, and that they have done very valuable work indeed.

Steel Supplies

Mr. Peter Roberts: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he has taken to procure for the National Coal Board the necessary steel required for the development of the industry.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Urgent consideration is being given to the whole question of the arrangements to ensure that the supplies of general steel shall be distributed in such a way as to maintain a proper balance between the various needs of our national life. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply has made arrangements designed to ensure that the coal industry shall receive the supplies necessary to meet its current needs.

Mr. Roberts: Does that mean that special arrangements have been made between the Minister and the Minister of Supply for the Coal Board?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS SUPPLIES

Research

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether any programme of research has yet been submitted to him by the Gas Council for agreement under Section 3 of the Gas Act, 1948; whether, in this connection, he has approved the decision of the Council to disband the Gas Research Board; and what steps he is taking in these circumstances to ensure that henceforward there is adequate co-operative research in the gas industry as a whole.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The Gas Council have recently submitted to me a programme of scientific research. I have laid it before my Scientific Advisory Council, and have asked them for their advice. The decision to end the Gas


Research Board did not require my consent, but I am glad to assure the hon. Member that I am in constant consultation with the Gas Council about the measures required to ensure the adequate and progressive expansion of gas research.

Mr. Erroll: Are research programmes to be considered by industrial firms connected with the gas industry, and will the results of the research, when the programmes have been decided upon, be publicly available?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Participation of the firms concerned with the manufacture of gas plant is now under consideration.

Underground Gasification

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what satutory powers are possessed by his Department for acquiring or entering upon agricultural land for the purposes of conducting experiments or schemes for the gasification of underground seams of coal; what disturbance to agricultural land is entailed by the gasification process; and what compensation for damage and for losses, whether consequential or otherwise, will be paid to farmers and landowners when their land is used for gasification purposes.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Under the Defence Regulations, I have the power to requisition land for the underground gasification of coal. But this power has not yet been used in the experiments which have so far been begun; the farmers and landowners concerned have been most co-operative in every way. The disturbance to agricultural land is small, since the top soil is neither displaced nor heated. If loss or damage should occur, proper compensation will, of course, be paid; the precise terms have not yet been agreed, but I am confident that no difficulty will arise.

Mr. Nabarro: Will the Minister assure the House that more generous terms will be provided in these circumstances than have been given in the past for compensation for opencast workings?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The terms were settled with the National Farmers' Union.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the Minister say how coal from opencast coal Mines can be obtained without the top soil being disturbed?

Mr. Noel-Baker: This is underground gasification.

Mr. Baldwin: What is the effect of gasification when it takes place underneath dwelling-houses? Is there any likelihood of subsidence?

Mr. Noel-Baker: We have not yet had experience of that. As the seams which have so far been explored are, I understand, 15 to 18 inches in width, I think that the effect would be very small.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power to make a statement upon the progress of experiments for underground gasification of coal seams being conducted at Newman Spinney, near Chesterfield; the industrial and commercial applications and value of the gas derived; the scale of the gas output; and whether any extensions of such gasification projects are contemplated in the Midlands or elsewhere.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Most encouraging results were obtained in 1950 in the experiments at Newman Spinney in the underground gasification of coal; they have been fully described in a paper published in the Journal of the Institute of Fuel, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. During the last five months, the work at Newman Spinney has been mainly in preparation for further trials. Other experiments will be made in various places. Trial borings have started at Bayton in Worcestershire; but it has not yet been decided that actual gasification shall begin.

Mr. Nabarro: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any indication of the capital expenditure involved upon these gasification experiments during the course of, say, the next two years, and is such expenditure included in the Coal Industry Bill which is now passing through this House?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Any such expenditure is borne partly by the Coal Board and partly by my Department. This is measured in tens of thousands of pounds, and it may be more in the forthcoming years, but it is of the highest possible importance because it may mean the utilisation of thousands of millions of tons of coal which would otherwise be useless.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES

Power Production

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what are his plans for increased power production; and what consultations on this subject there have been with the American Economic Co-operation Administration.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Plans have been made to expand the production of electric power as much and as rapidly as the available resources will allow. Consultations with the Economic Co-operation Administration are taking place, but even if it were possible for the Administration to give us any help the main burden of the programme must be met from our resources here.

Mr. Pickthorn: Is it not possible to give any kind of indication of what is meant by "as much and as rapidly"?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Last year 965 megawatts of new capacity were brought in. This year somewhere between 1,050 and 1,100 megawatts will be brought in. The highest before the war was 765 megawatts.

Sir Herbert Williams: Were any of these plants started before the British Electricity Authority came into being? How long does it take now between the decision to erect a power station and the time when it supplies current?

Mr. Noel-Baker: A large number were, of course, begun before B.E.A. came into being, but mainly by publicly-owned enterprises. Out of 60, all but three were by publicly-owned enterprises. I do not think that the delays are any longer now than they used to be. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The procedures were laid down in an Act of 1909.

Mr. Bossom: How many plants were started by local authorities before nationalisation?

Mr. Noel-Baker: As I have said, out of 60 all but three.

Major Legge-Bourke: Were the figures the right hon. Gentleman has given for this year arrived at before the re-armament programme or after, and, if before, what alteration is to be expected in them?

Mr. Noel-Baker: They are the figures we hope to realise.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken note of the comment made by the Anglo-American Productivity Report on this very subject, calling attention to the very long time that it takes before even permission can be obtained to begin the work?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. But in America they have a much less dense population than we have—[Laughter]—and their procedures are very much simpler. There are far fewer authorities to be consulted, and they do much more damage to amenity, in my opinion. As I said, the procedures were laid down by an Act of 1909, and I cannot change them.

Sir H. Williams: Is the higher density on the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Fernyhough: Can my right hon. Friend say how many power stations ought to have been completed before the war if the Opposition, when the Government, had done their job properly?

Mr. Speaker: We are dealing with production for the future and not with what happened in the past.

Power Cuts

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to industry through the prolonged cuts in electricity during the last few weeks; and when the northern region may expect a regular supply.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: There are at present special difficulties in the supply of electricity in the North-East, but I hope that they may be reduced when new power stations come into operation in the area, and when additional supply lines are provided from the south. In the meantime, I am considering what further measures can be taken to reduce the frequency and severity of power cuts.

Miss Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much financial loss is involved by these continual cuts, so that we may judge whether it is in the national interest to continue to export generating plant?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I make a very rough guess—it is no more than that—that the industrial loss last winter may have been £10 million for the country as a whole


Exports of plant were to the value of £16 million in 1950. It was small plant, which the B.E.A. did not require. Some of it went to Russia—about £6 million pounds worth—and we got £10 million worth of timber in return.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman give more detailed figures, and say when the new power stations are likely to be in proper running order?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I would like notice of that question.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Minister say whether his office gets any centralised and generalised figures of the shortages of voltage supply, or whether such figures are kept only in the areas and do not come up to the higher authorities?

Mr. Noel-Baker: If the hon. Gentleman means wattage delivered, the answer is "Yes, certainly."

Mr. Fernyhough: Can my right hon. Friend say how far the policy of full employment which is continuing in the North of England is a contributory factor to the power cuts and whether power cuts would still be necessary if there was mass unemployment?

Mr. Noel-Baker: If we had mass unemployment there would be no power cuts.

Miss Ward: If everyone is put on short time is that recognised as full employment?

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will set up an advisory committee composed of representatives of industrialists, local authorities, trade unionists and other consumers of electricity to advise him on matters affecting their difficulties arising out of cuts in electricity supplies and the means of circumventing them.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The question of load-spreading in order to minimise the frequency and severity of power cuts, is dealt with by a special sub-committee of the National Joint Advisory Council, which is presided over by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. I am in frequent consultation with the National Production Advisory Council for Industry, and with its emergency committee; on these bodies, as on the National Joint Advisory Council, there

are representatives of the Federation of British Industries, of the Trade Union Congress, and of the Regional Boards for Industry. In every area of Electricity Supply, there is a consumers' consultative Council, on which the local authorities and the organisations which speak for large bodies of consumers are strongly represented. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will agree that the purpose which she has in mind, is already adequately served.

Miss Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have had losses of production, losses of finance, and losses of food and that in the North it is considered that health is sometimes affected? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we can have a local committee and whether the Northern area is entitled to financial recompense for what it has suffered by all these cuts?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The consultative councils have district committees which fulfil the purpose which the hon. Lady has in mind.

New Consumers

Mr. Black: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps are proposed to be taken, in view of the warning recently given by the Chairman of the London Electricity Board, to ensure that electricity boards continue to be able to connect all new consumers requiring an electricity supply.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The difficulties to which the Chairman of the London Electricity Board has drawn attention result from the rapid increase in the demand. In consequence, the distribution network now requires to be considerably re-inforced. Subject to the needs of re-armament and other essential work, everything will be done to enable the electricity boards to connect new consumers without undue delay.

Mr. Black: Having regard to the fact that the Chairman of the London Electricity Board said that, unless further capital allocations were made, certain London districts would be forced to refuse new customers, including the new housing estates, for an indefinite period, is it possible for the Minister to give an assurance that that state of affairs will not be allowed to come upon us?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No one can give a general promise that everyone will be connected within a certain period when electricity is required. One of the major difficulties may be the supply of copper, for which the B.E.A. are in no way responsible.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL AND COKE SUPPLIES

Deliveries

Mr. John Rodgers: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why it now takes from three to four weeks for delivery of coal after receipt of invoice whereas the average time was four to five days previous to nationalisation.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: If the hon. Member is aware of any case where there has been undue delay of coal in transit after the despatch note has been received, he should advise the merchant to furnish full details to the supplier, who should then make representations to the appropriate transport organisation or contractor.

Mr. Rodgers: In this case the merchants have already been in touch with the local fuel overseer and have had no satisfaction whatsoever. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what machinery exists for liaison between the Coal Board and the Railway Executive?

Mr. Noel-Baker: They ought to take it up, if necessary, with their Consumers' Council.

Mr. P. Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be a problem over the shortage of wagons, and that that will be one of the reasons for delayed deliveries? Will he see that British Railways provide the necessary coal wagons?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that question ought to be put down to the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Roberts: If there is no coal it will certainly be the Minister's responsibility.

Boiler Fuel

Mr. John Rodgers: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why the period 1st June, 1950, to May 31st, 1951, was chosen as the base period for the allocation of small anthracite nuts to coal merchants.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: This has been the contractual period for the sale of anthracite for many years, and it is at present considered convenient to carry it on.

Mr. Rodgers: Is the Minister aware that the larger merchants have not supplied the smaller merchants, and that, therefore, the smaller merchants have been penalised?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Coal Board had to take over the arrangements that were in force when they became responsible for the mines, and they are, in fact, going into the whole thing. They propose to allocate anthracite for a period of six months as from 1st June this year, and then reconsider it.

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the continued emphasis by his department on the desirability of increasing fuel efficiency in this country by the substitution of closed stoves and central heating plant to replace open fires, what steps are being taken to ensure that in the next winter and future winters there is an adequate supply of anthracite, coke, phurnacite and other suitable fuel for use in such plants.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The output of phurnacite will be doubled by new plant which the National Coal Board are about to open; new coke ovens will be brought into operation very soon; and I shall do everything I can to increase the supplies of boiler fuel for household use. But the industrial demand for coke is constantly increasing, and I am afraid that I cannot, therefore, yet say what total quantities of boiler fuel the household market will receive. I would remind my hon. Friend, however, that most of the improved grates and stoves will also burn low grade coal, and that they do so with much greater efficiency than the older types of grate.

Captain John Crowder: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the retail price, delivered in London, of phurnacite, suitable for use in heat storage cookers, is £7 5s. 10d. per ton; and if any reduction will be made during the summer months.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The price of phurnacite delivered to consumers in London is now £7 7s. 11d. per ton. As the scheme for summer prices does not apply to boiler fuels, there will be no reduction during the summer months.

Captain Crowder: Does not the Minister think that this very high price will discourage householders from using heat storage cookers, and should not the Minister encourage their use because they are more economical, as he has admitted in a previous answer? Is not £7 7s. 11d. a very high price?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is very efficient fuel and the demand for it is very high, which shows that consumers think it worth while.

Summer Stocks

Mr. John Rodgers: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has taken steps to see that the allocation of summer coal to coal merchants is taking place to meet summer stocking demands.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave to the hon. and gallant Members for Chelsea (Commander Noble) and Finchley (Captain Crowder) on 7th May.

Mr. Rodgers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he is grossly misleading the public in urging them to stock up with summer coal when coal merchants have not enough stocks to supply their normal allocations?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. The summer prices scheme began on 1st June, and the merchants are getting supplies which will enable them to give coal to consumers for stocking.

Mr. Rodgers: Is the Minister not aware that merchants in Sevenoaks are not receiving sufficient coal to supply then-normal orders, let alone orders for stocking?

Mr. Noel-Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will let me have details, I will look into it. I inquired some little while ago, and found that things were much better.

Mr. Remnant: Will the Minister make further inquiries, because in areas round Reading, coal merchants have neither coal nor coke to supply to customers?

New Price Structure

Mr. Redmayne: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he anticipates that all qualities of house coal as defined

by the new price structure will be available in each zone; and whether the consumer will have free choice of quality.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power under the new system of graded coal, what means are available to the consumer to enable him to ascertain whether he obtains the grade of coal for which he has paid.

Mr. W. G. Bennett: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in view of the many differing qualities and prices of coal now being introduced, the consumer will have the option of procuring supplies of fuel from another merchant if the registered supplier has no fuel of the grade required available.

Mr. P. Roberts: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make a statement about the new price structure to be introduced by the National Coal Board.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Hitherto, the National Coal Board have supplied some hundreds of different grades of coal at different prices to the house coal market, and the price of each grade has varied in each district of the country according to the cost of transport and the cost of distribution by the retail merchant.
In agreement with the merchants, the Board have re-classified their household coals into eight groups, and each group will be sold at a uniform maximum price in each of about 60 zones. Thus coals of similar quality, however far they travel from the pits, will reach the householder in any given district at the same price. Coals in group I will be 5s. a ton dearer than those in group 2; coals in group 8 will be 5s. a ton cheaper than those in group 7. The difference between the other groups will be 3s. 4d. a ton.
These new arrangements will mean that the prices of coals delivered to the domestic market will be much more closely related to their quality than ever before. They will help to ensure that the householder gets what he pays for, and will make it easier for the merchants and the Board to deal with complaints about the quality of the coal.
Though in many regions all the groups of coal will be available, and in the rest nearly all the groups, there will be districts within a region where the choice


of coal will be more limited. This may be for many reasons; for example, because the districts rely on local pits, or because they rely on sea transport from a special coalfield. The merchants will do their best to supply their customers with the quality for which the customers may ask, but it would be impracticable to arrange the transfer of orders from one merchant to another, nor do I think that the failure of a merchant to supply a particular grade of coal would normally be considered by the local fuel overseer to be an adequate ground for granting an exceptional change of merchant. It will, of course, always be open to a consumer to change his merchant at the beginning of a new coal year.
The merchant will be required to show the group number of the coal and the price on the delivery notes which he sends to his consumers. The schedules of qualities and maximum prices will be available for inspection in offices of local fuel overseers and of coal merchants. If any merchant charged more than the proper price for the coal which he delivered, he would be liable to prosecution.

Mr. Redmayne: What is the average overall price of all grades, having regard to the qualities that will be available in summer or winter? Is it not a fact that the average discloses that the price of coal to the consumer is increasing? Is the consumer getting better value or worse?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is complicated by the fact of the transport and distribution costs of the merchants, but the pithead price—what the Coal Board receives—will, on the average, be about 1s. less than it is now.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Can the Minister say how ordinary householders are to tell whether they are getting a lower grade of coal and paying a higher price for it?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It has been extremely difficult for them to do so in the past, and this arrangement will, I think, make it very much easier. They can always go to the coal merchant or to the local fuel overseer to verify what the price ought to be.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Can the Minister say what it is in this arrangement which is comparable, as a protection to the consumer in respect of quality, to the older

arrangement by which the consumer could change his coal merchant or the coal merchant could change his colliery?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am afraid that the abandonment of registration with the coal merchants is a very big affair, and that the merchants would strongly resist it.

Mr. P. Roberts: May I ask the Minister two questions? First, do I understand from him that the specifications of "quality boxes" are to be published? Second, may I ask, concerning the consumer who is involved in a longer transport haul, which obviously would increase the cost, where that extra subsidy is to come from? Does it come from other consumers, who get their coal on a shorter haul, or will it be borne by the railways?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is to be averaged within the zone.

Mr. Roberts: Does that mean that the users of coal who at the present time live near a coalfield are to pay more in respect of their coal because of the longer haul to supply others?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Within their own zones, some may pay a little more and some may pay a little less.

Mr. Vane: When will it be possible for a person to order his coal direct from a colliery, as he used to be able to do, to avoid all these complications?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Has the right hon. Gentleman any particular grade of this new coal in mind when he speaks of special district difficulties in getting hold of the new coal?

Mr. Noel-Baker: In South Wales, I think that probably there are only to be three or four grades available. They will be the grades which South Wales people like to burn.

Mr. W. Robson-Brown: When the Minister made reference to quality in relation to price, did he relate that to the amount of dirt, ash and slate in the quality of coal, and can he say whether there will be any indication in the quality as to the percentage of these impurities?

Mr. Noel-Baker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the amount of dirt in coal has been very greatly reduced indeed. If there is dirt it will count as part of the classification for quality.

Quality (Complaints)

Mr. P. Roberts: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will give instructions to his fuel officers to support any proper complaints made by merchants to the National Coal Board where it is proved that dirty and poor quality coal has been delivered to a customer.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: As the hon. Member is aware, the National Coal Board have agreed with the Coal Merchants' Federation and the Co-operative Union on a procedure for dealing with complaints about the quality of coal. I have no reason for thinking that this procedure is not working well, but if any merchant feels aggrieved by any decision which the Board may make it is open to him to complain direct, or through his trade association, to the appropriate Coal Consumers' Council. I hope the hon. Member will agree that, in these ways, the merchants are adequately protected against abuse.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware, however, that if a merchant returns dirty or bad coal to the Coal Board he is liable to have that amount knocked off his next allocation, thereby losing coal for his customers? As he is not very likely to do that if the suggestion about the fuel officer were adopted there might not be victimisation of that kind.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I cannot accept the word "victimisation." If such a thing occurs the Coal Merchants' Federation will take it up at once, and they have not done so so far.

Mr. Roberts: But is it not a fact that if a merchant returns coal it is not replaced?

MAGISTRATES (GORE PETTY SESSIONS)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Attorney-General by what authority Mrs. E. Iwi was required to give an undertaking not to sit as a magistrate in the Gore Petty Sessional Division of Middlesex for a period of one year, the alternative being her removal from the bench.

The Attorney-General (Sir Frank Soskice): A justice of the peace holds office during pleasure and the decision to terminate the appointment of a justice is in the discretion of my noble and learned

Friend the Lord Chancellor. This particular matter was first brought to his attention in November, 1949, owing to unfortunate differences which had arisen between Mrs. Iwi and her fellow justices of the Gore Division. My noble and learned Friend asked Mr. and Mrs. Iwi to come to see him, and went into the whole matter. After a long interview he came to the conclusion that Mrs. Iwi was overwrought and that she was firmly under the impression, though my noble and learned Friend thought, quite wrongly, that she was a victim of some intrigue on the part of the other justices.
My noble and learned Friend came to the conclusion that it would be greatly in her own interest and in the general interests of the administration of justice in the Gore Division if time were allowed to heal the differences which had arisen. It was in these circumstances that he pressed her to give him an undertaking to abstain from administering justice for a year, hoping that at the end of this time she might resume her magisterial duties in a happier atmosphere. Mrs. Iwi, after considering the matter, gave the undertaking.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The Lord Chancellor having made it quite clear that he had no cause to remove this lady from the bench, can the Attorney-General say what is the statutory authority which enables the Lord Chancellor to compel a magistrate not to sit in that capacity for any period? Are magistrates now being bound over to keep away from the commission of the peace for probationary periods?

The Attorney-General: The Lord Chancellor did not compel her; he suggested that she should give an undertaking, and, after consideration, she gave it.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Attorney-General whether he will arrange for an immediate public inquiry to be made into the administration of justice in the Gore Petty Sessional Court of Middlesex, in view of the allegations made by Mrs. E. Iwi, a member of the local bench of magistrates, who has recently resigned at her own request.

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has carefully considered the allegations which Mrs. Iwi has made, and has


decided that no useful purpose would be served by holding an inquiry into this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the very grave factual statements alleging irregular conduct in the administration of justice by the magistrates of Hendon court, does my right hon. and learned Friend not think that in order to prevent the courts from falling into disrepute some form of inquiry should be made into these allegations?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. As I have already said, my noble and learned Friend carefully inquired from each and everyone of them.

INTESTACY LAWS

Mr. Maudling: asked the Attorney-General whether he will now introduce legislation to vary the present intestacy regulations to provide increased benefit for the surviving spouse.

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. The Committee appointed by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor in October last to inquire into the law of intestacy is expected to present its report shortly. The Government will consider whether legislation is desirable, and what form it should take, when they have had an opportunity of examining this report.

RIGHT OF ENTRY (PRIVATE PREMISES)

Mr. H. A. Price: asked the Attorney-General if, in view of the recent legal decision that gas inspectors, under the Gas Act, 1948, have power to force an entry into private premises without a warrant, he will consider the introduction of legislation removing such powers from all who possess them and making it necessary for a warrant to be obtained in all such cases.

The Attorney-General: Powers such as those exercised by the gas inspector in the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, have existed as part of our legislation since the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1871. I am not aware that they have been oppressively or unfairly exercised. I do not

think there is any ground for the change which the hon. Gentleman suggests in relation to these powers, or for making it necessary for a warrant to be obtained before any powers of entry available under our law are exercised.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Attorney-General if he will consider restoring the traditional privacy of the British home by removing the right of entry of any official or other person without a court order or a search warrant.

The Attorney-General: It is, unfortunately, unavoidable that the law should in certain circumstances permit of entry without warrant into private houses, and this has been found necessary in our legislation for a long time past. Generally, the power is only exercisable when the premises are also used for business purposes. I do not think that a wholesale change in the law such as suggested by the hon. Gentleman is either necessary or practicable.

Mr. Bossom: Does not the Minister realise that for a great many years the legal system of Great Britain was considered entirely satisfactory, and that the great majority of people are quite as honest as the snoopers who go into their houses?

The Attorney-General: I certainly realise that the system has been considered satisfactory. These powers have been inherent in it for a long time.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is it not the first duty of this House not to make laws but to preserve freedom? Will the Attorney-General not admit that however sympathetically the law may be administered at the moment it is the basis of the police State to have the right of entry without warrant?

Mr. Braine: Is this question not the most important on the Order Paper today, and is there not at least a case for restricting the number of officials in the exercise of these powers?

The Attorney-General: I entirely agree that powers to enter private houses should be used as sparingly as possible. So far as I am aware there is no power in our legislative system which transgresses that principle.

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE ACT (OPERATION)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Attorney-General the number of cases in which aid was given under the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, in the period 1st April, 1950, to 31st March, 1951.

The Attorney-General: Fifteen thousand two hundred and nineteen.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Attorney-General when he expects that the statement of accounts of the Legal Aid Fund for the period 1st April, 1950, to 31st March, 1951, will be laid before Parliament.

The Attorney-General: Under the provisions of Section 10 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, the statement of accounts of the Legal Aid Fund is required to be laid before Parliament by the Comptroller and Auditor-General together with his report upon it. The Comptroller and Auditor General receives the account from my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor after its audit by his auditors and with their report. These auditors are now engaged upon their audit and I cannot say, at this stage, when their and the Comptroller and Auditor-General's examinations will be completed and the account laid before Parliament.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the accounts for the period ending March, 1950, only related to initial expenses and were not made public to the Members of the House until May, 1951? Can he hold out any hope that there will be less delay in the future?

The Attorney-General: I am quite sure that they will be laid before the House as soon as it is reasonably possible to do so. They have not been laid yet for the reasons I have given.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the accounts, when they are published, will give the information that was asked for in Question No. 35? Is he aware that there is a growing feeling in the profession that the amount of assessed contribution is altogether too high, and that the usefulness of the service is being depreciated by that fact?

The Attorney-General: That does not arise out of the Question I have answered.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PAPER ECONOMY)

Brigadier Smyth: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the shortage and cost of paper and the present increasing wastage of manhours in all Government Departments in form filling and the drawing up of reports and returns, he will issue instructions to all his Ministers that there must be a reduction of all unnecessary forms and paper generally.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not by any means accept all the assumptions of the hon. and gallant Member's Question. He would, however, refer him to the reply which was given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 10th April to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew, East (Major Lloyd).

Brigadier Smyth: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that those at the receiving end of Government paper—doctors, chemists, farmers, teachers, soldiers, sailors and others—complain loudly about the number of forms and certificates they have to sign? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider, therefore, in the interests of economy and efficiency, making a 10 per cent. cut in the consumption of paper in Government Departments?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think we had better deal with this by theoretical methods. Every effort is made by the Government to keep this kind of activity down to the minimum, but we must have information if only to satisfy Members of the Opposition in putting Parliamentary Questions.

Mr. George Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that out of the preceding 44 Questions 32 have come from the Opposition asking for information, which required the drawing up of reports and returns? Does my right hon. Friend not


regard information given to the Opposition on so large a scale as a waste of manpower, time and material?

Mr. Morrison: I could not agree more.

SECRETARY FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (DUTIES)

Mr. Profumo: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements he is making to ensure that the time and work involved in discharging his new responsibilities in connection with the Home and Overseas Information Services will not prevent the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations performing fully the duties and functions of that office.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is fully satisfied that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will be able to discharge his responsibilities in connection with the information services without detriment to his Departmental duties.

Mr. Profumo: Does not that answer appear to indicate that if the Minister can do these two jobs satisfactorily he must have been fairly seriously underemployed previously? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us which of these two jobs will take priority, public relations or Commonwealth relations? Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that one of the first jobs the Minister will undertake will be to cut down the home information services' inflated and unnecessary expenditure on boosting the Government and Socialism?

Mr. Morrison: In reply to that speech, which contains a very great deal of foolishness and lack of information, I would say that to talk about two jobs here is utterly ridiculous. I have had something to do with the information services and I know exactly what they mean. To talk about them as a full-time job is utterly ridiculous and is almost provoking the Government to manufacture ministerial jobs.

NORTH ATLANTIC DEFENCE (GREECE AND TURKEY)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what

official requests have been made to the North Atlantic Treaty Powers that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation should be extended to include Greece and Turkey; and what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard thereto.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): Since the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in New York in September, 1950, there has been no official request that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation should be extended to include Greece and Turkey. My right hon. Friend has already explained the position of His Majesty's Government in this matter in his reply to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson) on 30th May.

Mr. Fletcher: That reply referred to Turkey rather than to Greece and Turkey. Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is most desirable that both Greece and Turkey should be incorporated as soon as possible in an arrangement for the defence of Western Europe?

Mr. Younger: I think it is correct that that reply, given on the 30th, did relate to Turkey, but almost the same considerations apply to Greece. The matter is under consideration.

REFUGEES (RELIEF AND RESETTLEMENT)

Mr. John Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals His Majesty's Government have in view for assisting in the work of rehabilitation and resettlement of refugees in Germany and elsewhere when the International Refugee Organisation ceases its functions this year.

Mr. Younger: As regards the disposal, after the International Refugee Organisation has ceased operations, of refugees who come at present under its mandate, I would refer to the answer given on 11th May to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish). With regard to action in the Middle and Far East, His Majesty's Government have played a leading part in establishing the organisations set up by the United Nations to assist Palestinian and Korean refugees, and will continue to give them their full support.

Mr. Hynd: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the latter part of his answer, may I say that I am well aware of what is contained in the previous answer to which he has referred me in the first part of his reply? Will he at least tell me whether the Government fully appreciate that, apart altogether from humanitarian considerations, the situation created by the packing of millions of refugees into Germany is highly dangerous from the point of view of Western civilisation? Can he give us any assurance that the matter will be receiving the continued attention of the United Nations?

Mr. Younger: I think that my hon. Friend will appreciate that there are many different categories of refugee. The vast number of those to whom he refers are probably Germans in Germany. I may be wrong about that. The majority of the refugees who formerly were dealt with by the International Refugee Organisation have been resettled. The wider problem will be considered shortly by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

Sir H. Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman doing the Foreign Secretary's job because the Foreign Secretary is so busy today doing the Prime Minister's job?

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken or proposed by His Majesty's Government, via the United Nations or otherwise, to help generally Arabs expatriated from Israeli territory.

Mr. Younger: I stated in the House on 19th July, 1950, that the British representative on the Advisory Commission to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency had been instructed to propose that the Agency should provide all possible assistance to certain Arabs who had been expelled from Israel. Such assistance was, in fact, given by the Agency. In similar circumstances, His Majesty's Government would again be prepared to recommend to the Agency that assistance should be made available.

Mr. Pickthorn: Has consideration been given to the possibility of unfreezing Arab assets held on Palestinian territory?

Mr. Younger: I think that is a question that varies rather widely from that which is on the Order Paper.

Mr. Gammans: Is the Minister aware that while the United Nations are keeping these unfortunate people alive nothing has been done to settle them permanently, and that Jordan, where half a million refugees are living in the most distressing circumstances, cannot possibly absorb one-third of that number, whatever help may be given?

Mr. Younger: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the problem of resettlement is the one which is proving intractable. We went into this question at some length in a debate quite recently, and I cannot undertake to answer that supplementary question fully in the time available.

MIDDLE EAST (LOCUSTS)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what British funds have been promised, in response to the request from the Government of Iran, to subscribe some of the funds needed to prevent locust attacks on Persia and other Middle East countries.

Mr. Younger: In April, the Persian Government made a general appeal to His Majesty's Government and the United States Government for aid in meeting the locust threat. In consultation with His Majesty's Government, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company immediately made available to the Persian Government spraying aircraft, insecticide, expert personnel and service, to a total cost of about £75,000. A senior entomologist with long experience of Persian conditions was also released by Messrs. Plant Protection Ltd. to take charge of the campaign. His Majesty's Government are also playing a leading part in meeting the locust threat in other Middle East countries through the operations of the British Desert Locust Control Organisation.

Mr. Reid: Do His Majesty's Government contribute to the funds of this campaign?

Mr. Younger: I should want notice of that question. This assistance was supplied by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

PERSIA (ANGLO-IRANIAN OIL COMPANY)

Mr. Eden: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the present situation in Persia.

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. There have been few developments in the Persian oil situation since my statement on 29th May. The Persian Government have still not replied to our aide-mémoire of 19th May nor sent us any other official communication on the subject. On the other hand, the Persian Minister of Finance, on 30th May, handed to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's Manager in Teheran an aide-mémoire setting out the views of the Persian Government on the steps to be taken to put into force the Persian laws on the nationalisation of the oil industry, and stating that, as the Government wished to take advantage of the Company's experience and knowledge, they invited the Company to put forward within five days any proposals they might have, within the framework of the nationalisation laws.
Yesterday, the Company's Teheran Manager, on instructions which had thefull approval of His Majesty's Government, handed the Minister of Finance a reply in which the Company, whilst, of course, reserving its full legal rights, proposed to send out representatives to Teheran as soon as possible to discuss the whole question with the Persian authorities, though it was pointed out that this could not be done within five days in view of the complicated nature of the issues involved. The substance of these two communications has already appeared in the Press. The composition of the company's Mission will, I hope, be made known shortly.
Meanwhile, His Majesty's Ambassador at Teheran, on my instructions, has again made it clear to the Persian Prime Minister that we cannot accept his contention that the dispute is solely between the Persian Government and the Company, but on the contrary, as has repeatedly been made clear, His Majesty's Government have every right to intervene in defence of this great British interest in Persia, and, moreover, have an important interest in the matter by reason of their majority holding in the Company.
That is how the matter now stands. His Majesty's Government hope that the Company's mission may be able in the course of the proposed discussions to bring the Persian authorities to a fuller realisation of all the many and complex problems which have to be faced, and that this may lay the foundations for a satisfactory settlement. His Majesty's Government will, of course, remain in the closest touch with the Company, as they have been throughout.

Mr. Eden: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for keeping us informed. No doubt he will be good enough to continue to do so while the present situation persists. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that we were particularly glad to hear his observations about the interest of His Majesty's Government in this matter? While it is a good thing that the Company's representatives should talk to the Persians about the situation, there seemed to some of us to be a certain danger that the Persians would interpret that as meaning that His Majesty's Government were not interested. In view of the decisions which we had taken, that obviously could not be so. I should like to say that His Majesty's Opposition are in agreement with His Majesty's Government on this matter.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Osborne: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether an hon. Member has any means of "getting at" the Minister of Transport for not providing facilities to bring hon. Members to the House in time for Questions? I left Leicester at 11.30 this morning in order to be here in time for Questions Nos. 7 and 10, but a train which took one and a half hours before the war, and is now allowed 2½ hours for the journey, was nearly 40 minutes late and I missed the Questions. Have we any redress against the Minister of Transport for failing in his duties?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member could get a Question about that on the Order Paper. It seems to me to be more or less a matter of the day-today administration of British Railways.

Orders of the Day — TELEGRAPH BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.36 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I want to divide what I have to say into two parts. It will be recollected that on a previous occasion there was a wide discussion about the increased charges which are being imposed by the Post Office. In that debate discussion of the increase in telegraph charges was out of order, and it is this Bill which enables the House to discuss that proposition. I indicated on that occasion that the Post Office costs were increasing so fast that there was a possibility that they would wipe out the commercial surplus, and I also indicated that the loss on the telegraph side was increasing at a very fast rate. The rate at which the loss on the telegraph side is increasing is the justification for the Bill. It is highly probable that by the end of the financial year the loss on the telegraph system will be in the region of £5 million.
For the best part of a quarter of a century the telegraph system has been carried on the back of the revenues from the other services. This has been the one side of the Post Office operations which has always been a nightmare for the Postmaster-General. This is because, as the telephone service grows, it limits the field of the telegraph service, and as the curve of the telephone service expansion has risen, we have seen the curve of the telegraph deficit rise at the same time and in about the same proportion. We have to face the position that, with the development and expansion of the telephone service, the telegraph service will have extreme difficulty in maintaining its existence.
This situation has been examined over a number of years. My predecessors in office have taken all the steps open to them to try to economise in the service in order to cut down expenditure. In the last seven years the efforts made by my predecessors to mechanise the service and to give a swifter and cheaper service, have already shown very great results, but

we have to face the fact that, no matter what is done, the telegraph service will have to be carried by the rest of the Post Office services. We have gone on with the automatic through-switching service which was originated by one of my predecessors. The teleprinter manual switching system has been developed, and now we envisage the introduction of a facsimile telegraph service which we hope will cut out quite a number of those intermediate operations which are now being conducted by hand.
On the costs side, I think my predecessors are entitled to a much greater measure of credit than has been given to them for the efforts they made to cut down the costs. When I took this office, I looked at the other side of it to see how far we could increase revenue and to see what could be done to halt what appeared to be a slowly dying service. I reintroduced the greetings telegram to try to inject into the service a little more life, a little more vigour and, I hoped, a little more finance. That has proved exceptionally successful. In the six months of its operation, over two and half million greetings telegrams have been despatched and the revenue from it has been of great assistance.
I was able to do that with effect only because there was a margin of slackness in the telegram system which enabled us to take on this new burden without adding substantially to our costs. The number of new employees who had to be brought in to meet this demand was exceptionally small and, by and large, this service was carried on by the present personnel, equipment and resources. So I think one can say that roughly 70 per cent. of the increased revenue on account of greetings telegrams has been a net gain to us, and the amount taken for the increased cost has been extremely small.
Having looked at the results of those steps, having examined what my predecessors did to economise on the cost of this service in order to reduce the expenditure, one is forced to the conclusion that, despite all this, unless something is done on the lines of this Bill, our loss on the telegraph service will reach unmanageable proportions.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to


interrupt? Can he divide the cost of transmission and the cost of delivery to people who have no telephones?

Mr. Ness Edwards: That is one of the snags—to break down the costing so precisely. However, if it is convenient to the House, I will try at the end of the debate to give as much information as possible to satisfy hon. Members that we have the closest accounting system. We can tell roughly what is the general cost of delivering a telegram in the different systems adopted as a result of the steps taken by my predecessors. By the steps proposed in this Bill we hope to obtain additional revenue of £450,000 in a full year. This will go towards reducing the deficiency which, as I have told the House, we anticipate is round about £5 million.
Now I come to the Bill, which follows the pattern of previous Telegraph Acts in imposing a ceiling on the inland charges. Clause 1 (1) deals with the increased maximum rates for ordinary telegrams. It permits an increased charge of 1s. 6d. for a telegram of 12 words, plus 1½d. for each additional word. That compares with the present charge of 1s. for nine words, plus 1d. for each additional word. So that under this Bill a 12 word telegram will cost 1s. 6d. instead of the present 1s. 3d. On telegrams with a greater number of words, the variation is greater, but on the usual 12-word telegram the additional charge is 3d. In subsection (2) we take power to provide for 1½d. a word on the greetings telegrams for the additional words above 12 words. Clause 2 applies the Bill to Northern Ireland, to the Isle of Man and to the Channel Islands.
That is the substance of this small Bill. It does two things. One is to authorise the Post Office to lay a Statutory Instrument for the purpose of increasing the charge for the ordinary telegram and for increasing the charge for extra words in the greetings telegram from 1d. to 1½d. Secondly, it applies the provisions of the Bill, as I have said, to the Channel Islands, to the Isle of Man and to Northern Ireland.
Despite this, I should not be doing right by the House if I did not let hon. Members know the final result. Even with these increased charges, the final result is

that we have a cheaper telegraph system than any of the large countries. It is much cheaper than that of the United States, much cheaper than that of Canada, and cheaper than that of France. So that when we take an international comparison, our charges for the telegraph system in this country appear exceedingly reasonable.
I much regret the necessity for this increase in charges, for, after all, these are the means of communication of urgent messages for the poorer section of the community. On the other hand, it would not be right to put all this burden on to the other users of Post Office services. The amount of the burden is extremely small—I am getting only £450,000 to meet a deficiency of over £5 million—but, on balance, I think that is the reasonable view to take.
We have to keep this telegraph system. In times of great national emergency it is of vital importance to the country. Therefore, looking at the whole picture, I am satisfied that what we propose in this Bill is right in the interests of the telegraph service, in the interests of the Post Office and in the interests of the nation. Therefore, I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: At the outset of my remarks I should like to thank the Postmaster-General for the tribute he paid to his predecessors in office over some years past for the steps inaugurated to try to economise on the telegraph service. The right hon. Gentleman made particular reference to the system of switching introduced some years ago. On behalf of my hon. Friends who have been at the Post Office before, and myself, I am obliged to him for that tribute.
Further, I am glad to hear that the re-introduction of the greetings telegram has proved a success. I congratulate him there on following advice which he received from this side of the House, and I express the hope that he will follow some further advice which he has had and which he will get. Having said that, I am afraid that the rest of my remarks cannot be quite so agreeable to the Postmaster-General.
First, the increased telegraph charges which this Bill seeks to introduce are part of the general rise in Post Office charges which we discussed a little time ago—


on 19th April, to be exact. On that occasion we censured the Government for these charges and, at the conclusion of the debate, they scraped home by eight votes. For Parliamentary and technical reasons, we could not then discuss telegraphs, but I do not think that it is possible to look at these rises in a vacuum. The Postmaster-General must understand that, for reasons which we have advanced and shall continue to advance, both in the House and in the country, we hold the Government partly—I might even say largely—responsible for the present price rises in telephones and the rest.
The Postmaster-General has in the past been rather inclined to blame private industry, his contractors, the rise in the price of raw materials and so on, for many of his difficulties, but in this connection I would refer him to some remarks which were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) in a debate on raw materials. It was clearly brought out by my right hon. Friend that, as long ago as last August the Ministry of Supply were discouraging private industry and firms from acquiring raw materials which they could have got then at prices lower than those at which they could get them today had they not followed Government advice. When the right hon. Gentleman is inclined to blame outside industry for some of his troubles, he should remember, therefore, those factors in the situation for which we rightly blame his own Government.
Telegraph costs are a further charge on industry and the public. The present proposal by the Postmaster-General, even on his own figures, does precious little to meet the telegraph problem in the Post Office. We on this side admit that the telegraph problem beset us, and it is besetting the right hon. Gentleman in a far greater degree. Having said this, however, it might be interesting to look at the position, and in this connection I shall refer to the commercial accounts—not to be confused with the cash accounts—as in this way the position will be far better understood.
The present increases under the Bill do practically nothing to meet the problem. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the loss on telegraphs this year, as will be seen from the commercial accounts in the Civil Estimates, is expected to be

about £4,700,000. By the Bill, the Postmaster-General will get, this year, £300,000. When talked about as the solution to the problem, or even as very much of a contribution to it, this becomes quite absurd.
That brings me to the question whether in the future telegraphs should be treated as a separate branch of activity. There has been coined quite a good expression—"telecommunications"—and because the increased use of the telephone has gradually pushed out the telegraph, I am wondering whether we have not arrived at the stage when we should talk of telecommunications and forget the two different departments of telephones and telegraphs.
This is what I have in mind. I wonder how far these figures of telegraph losses, put into a watertight compartment, are "phoney." An illustration can best explain my meaning. Every time that a subscriber picks up his receiver and dials T E L, he is using the telephone service for a telegram. Every time that a telegram arrives at a country office and is telephoned to the addressee's telephone number, if he happens to be on the telephone, is again a mix-up between the telephone and the telegraph service.
I wonder whether it is actuarially possible to sort out how the costs of the different parts of the service can be divided? So many considerations are involved—for example, whether the telegraph service should pay some proportion of the rent for the lines that are used, and so on—and the whole thing becomes so actuarially intricate that I wonder whether the figures that we have are really a true guide to the position. I advance this as an added reason for suggesting that we have reached the time when it would be much better to treat the whole thing as telecommunications and be done with the different departments of telephones and telegrams.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the necessity to retain the telegraph service. I know all the arguments which he advanced—that the telegraph user should not be subsidised by the man who posts a letter or by the man who uses a telephone, and so on—but in many public services that principle has to be an accepted doctrine. One does not need to look further than the London Passenger Transport Board for an example. When


the Bill dealing with London transport was passing through the House—incidentally, it was introduced by a National Government—one of the arguments for the grouping of the London transport services was that in the public interests the unremunerative bus route had to be maintained. Something of the same sort applies as between telegraphs and the telephone.
It is, true that the use of the inland telegraph is going out, but it is still used considerably by industry and there are considerations of a non-commercial character, which always seemed powerful to me when I was at the Post Office. When all is said and done, the telegraph is the last resort of the poorer section of the community for speedy communication in times of illness, death, anxiety, and so on. For that reason, although the telegraph service may as an entity be hopelessly unremunerative, it must be kept on.
I am not at all sure that if this service were kept on and the telegraph service and telephones were treated as one, some of the brains in the right hon. Gentleman's Department might not be able to think up some sort of link service which would make an appeal to the public. I have in mind something on the lines of the night-letter telegram. It might be very useful for a business executive to have a conversation with a customer and to have the whole thing recorded for him by the Post Office with a sort of telegraph-telephone arrangement. Given the will to do it, there are avenues of that sort which could be explored.
As I have said, this business of telegraphs cannot be considered in isolation. I noticed the other day that the Postmaster-General made a very interesting speech in the country, which is reported in the "Star," from which I should like to quote. I have selected what, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman and I might call a neutral newspaper. Speaking of the Post Office, the right hon. Gentleman is reported to have said:
It should make some contribution to the Exchequer as any other industry—no less or more—and it should not be regarded as an instrument of fiscal policy or a means of taxing the community.
I select a quotation from another speech by the right hon. Gentleman, this time

from the "Western Mail," another newspaper with which I do not think the Minister will quarrel geographically. He said at Cardiff:
I hope we shall be able to reconstitute the conception of the Post Office in the financial organisation of this country to free it from all the strings which are imposed upon it, and all those limitations which are the consequence of the present financial organisation and its relation to the Treasury.
I have no disagreement with the principles expressed. I think they are admirable in many respects, but what is the Postmaster-General doing to carry them out? Why does he not take the first step in doing this?

Sir Herbert Williams: "One step enough for me."

Mr. Grimston: I suggest to him a first step to get the whole position of the Post Office vis-à-vis the Treasury and taxation, standing on its feet and so on, sorted out. Referring again to the Estimates of Revenue Departments, I see that the Post Office is at present performing certain free telegraph services for different Government Departments. They are not being paid for telegraph services by other Government Departments. The amounts for telegrams are absolute chicken feed compared with the other expenses incurred by Government Departments, for telephones and so forth; but why does the right hon. Gentleman not take the first step and say that in future he will go back to the pre-war system recommended by the Select Committee and make Government Departments pay for Post Office services?
What would follow from that? The other day, when it was suggested that the other Government Departments, if they had to pay for these services, would not be so extravagant with them, an hon. Member opposite said that, of course, if they were not extravagant down would go Post Office traffic. But that does not follow. If by a system of charging other Government Departments, the right hon. Gentleman can get their calls on the Post Office lessened, he can do something to catch up with the queues of people waiting for telephones and, instead of clawing in money from the taxpayers, he will get it from the public.
That would be one way to break some of the spiral of prices caused by taxation.


He would get revenue from the public instead of from other Government Departments. As I have shown, these price rises are quite ineffective in meeting the telegraph problem which besets the Postmaster-General. They are an added burden on industry, albeit, not as big as many others, and of course they will be a hardship to a small section of the community for the reasons given by the Postmaster-General in his speech, to which I have also alluded.
The other day we divided the House on the whole question of these price rises, of which these telegraph rises are a part, and that goes for this Bill. Therefore, we do not propose to put the House to the trouble of dividing against the Bill, as we made our attitude very clearly known on the other occasion. But the pity is that we see the Postmaster-General making what I would call genuflexions to the rising spiral of costs—this Bill is one—instead of setting out to see whether his great Department and all the brains and experience he has at his command in that Department cannot take some step to cut this vicious circle of price rises, for which he and his colleagues blame everyone except themselves.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I wish to put two points to the Postmaster-General. I was a little distressed to hear him talk of the possibility of closing down or curtailing these services, particularly from the point of view of areas which are very backward in their telephone service. I refer particularly to the Sheffield area where we consider—as I hope the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Private Secretary is constantly telling him—that we have had a worse deal over new telephones than have other cities. Therefore, it is important that the telegraph service should be made even more readily available to people who cannot get telephones.
The second point to which I wish to refer is that put by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston) when dealing with overhead charges. Before I could be satisfied with this Bill, I should want to know how overhead charges are split up by the Post Office between the private telephone service and the telegraph service. We have certain figures, but it appears so easy in interdepartmental

arrangements for overhead charges of one kind to be weighted to one particular Department, and it is easy, when the accounts of the private telephone service are so great, to deal in possibly one or two millions one way or the other which would make a very different picture of the telegraph service.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance and some figures about how the break-up of those overhead charges has been made. I think it vitally important, when he talks of a deficit of from £4½ million to £5 million, to know that it might be reduced by half if a certain part were transferred from one branch of the service to another. It may well be, as my hon. Friend said, that sufficient weight has not been given to the part the telephone service is playing in the telegraph service.

4.7 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: For many years I have devoted a certain amount of time to examination of the commercial accounts of the Post Office. I have listened with interest to the two speeches which preceded mine, in which my hon. Friends speculated on the extent of the loss on the telegraphs, but, whatever the method of accountancy, the telegraphs have run at a loss since 1871. The right hon. Gentleman can say, "My predecessors made a bigger mess of it than I did," if he likes. I believe he can say that. The story is interesting. Telegraphs were not invented by the State, as the State never invents anything, but they were taken over from a private company in 1869 and, by 1871, they had been turned into a loss and the loss has persisted ever since.
A few years later Graham Bell and one or two others invented the telephone, and a company was formed in this country to give us telephones. Certain municipalities started telephone services, some of which survive. The Hull service is one. But what did the Postmaster-General do? I do not remember whether he was a Liberal or a Conservative, but he allowed certain private companies to run their services only provided that they paid 10 per cent. of their gross receipts for something of which the State had not thought. People have forgotten all this, but I have a sticky memory and it is as well that this should be rubbed in.
I think the telegraph service has been hopeless for many years and neither by raising nor diminishing the rates will it be a success. I remember that the first Socialist mayor of Reading, when I was Member there, earned his living by operating the telegraph service on race courses. I do not know whether we have the right odds. If it were not for race meetings and a few things like that—and even that is now "done in" by the B.B.C., which is a competitive body—I do not know what could be done about this service.
It might pay if it were handed over to efficient management, because when the fear of bankruptcy and the profit motive are eliminated everybody becomes inefficient. I know of no case to the contrary. That is why I am the greatest opponent of nationalisation. I am much more extreme than many of my colleagues. They think that some kinds of nationalisation are tolerable. I know of none that is not inefficient. Why was the postal service nationalised? Largely because Charles II wanted to examine the correspondence of his loyal subjects. It was a security measure, not a fiscal measure.
Could the Postmaster-General persuade his myrmidons to be a little more helpful when I dial TEL? One can wait for so long before getting the stupid reply, "Can I help you?" which is the new form of courtesy on the telephone. I do not want the operator to say, "Can I help you?" I want the operator to take a telegram. But so much time is wasted with this fictitious courtesy, time which could be used to improve the service, that there are fantastic delays in getting an answer when one wants to send a telegram.
The number of people who have not got a telephone shocks me. I am made aware of them by the letters I receive and which I pass on to the right hon. Gentleman, who always sends me a courteous reply in which he says that on account of capital requirements and a lot of other nonsense he is sorry that the person concerned will not get his telephone for the next three years. I wish there could be a bit of push-and-go in the administration of the telephone service. After all, a large proportion of people, when sending a telegram today, use the telephone and dial TEL, and the waste of time is fantastic.
I was at a public meeting the other day, a Conservative meeting at which those present thought that they would like to send a telegram of sympathy to Mrs. Churchill, who has had to undergo an operation which I understand was not too serious. The meeting was in Willesden. I suggested that it would be better to get a small boy to deliver the message on a bicycle. I was satisfied that any boy could travel on a bicycle in very much quicker time from Willesden to the hospital in which Mrs. Churchill was than that in which the myrmidons of the right hon. Gentleman would succeed in sending her a telegram. More energy, push-and-go and vigour are required in the telegraph service if people are to use it. People use it only if it supplies a real need. I am satisfied that the telegraph service is less efficient than it was when I was a small boy.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Viant: Those who have listened to the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) are well aware that he is never happy unless he is expressing the extreme case.

Sir H. Williams: The normal case.

Mr. Viant: The cases he has just cited are by no means normal. I have been away from the Post Office for 20 years but I should require a lot of convincing that the Department is as lackadaisical today as has been asserted by the hon. Member for Croydon, East. Is there anything to be gained by making a statement of the kind he made? Those of us who know anything about this subject know quite well that if this service had been in the hands of private enterprise, there would have been no telegraph system in this country today. No one could have afforded to run it. The telegraph system cannot compete with the telephone system and pay from a commercial point of view.

Sir H. Williams: It was started by private enterprise, which was successful, but in two years after nationalisation it had become a financial failure.

Mr. Viant: Yes, private enterprise initiated the telegraph system but there has come into being the telephone system, which has eclipsed the telegraph system, and we resort to the telegraph system now only on very rare occasions. The


circumstances determine whether we telephone or send a telegram, and we have to face that fact. When I was in the Department, there was a considerable loss on the telegraph system, but the State appreciated the need for a telegraph service, and was prepared, and up to now has been prepared, to permit the service to continue even at a loss. We can never hope to put the telegraph system of this country on an economic basis. The telephone system is far too keen a competitor. What is more, the telephone system is more readily available than is the telegraph system. That fact must be faced, and all the arguing about the question will not dismiss it. It is no use quoting the extreme case, as the hon. Member for Croydon, East, has done.
The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston) suggested that the telephone system and the telegraph system might be treated as complementary, and that for financial purposes there should be no division between the accounts. That is a reasonable proposition. If we are to continue the service, that appears to me to be a reasonable way out. As that suggestion has come from the Opposition there can be no accusation, if there is general agreement on it, that the Department is desirous of cooking the accounts. It is generally admitted that it is an out-of-date service when compared with the telephone system, but there are occasions when the one becomes complementary to the other. In those circumstances, I think the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westbury is reasonable and that it would meet with the approval of the majority of commonsense people. I, for one, would be pleased to hear the Postmaster-General's comment on the proposition.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I wish to reprove my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). For many years I have tried to read Milton's "Paradise Lost." I read the beginning of it and always found something to distract my mind; but as I have frequently to dial TEL and TOL, I put the book by the telephone in my house, and sitting there listening to that very gentle buzzing of the bee which denotes no answer, I have managed to read "Paradise Lost." I am now looking for a new book.

Sir H. Williams: "Paradise Regained."

Mr. Baxter: I therefore say that not for the first time in this island's troubled story my hon. Friend has abused a service which is more subtle than he indicated.
Nearly every year, for reasons which I cannot remember, I go to the United States. There both the telephone and telegraphs are under private enterprise; telegraphs are competitive. When I arrive in New York some representative of one company or the other comes to see me at my hotel to try to put every facility at my disposal in the hope that I will use a lot or a little of them. He makes it clear that everything will be handled speedily. If I go into that shop which represents an interesting expression of American life, the drug store, I can send a telegram from there. If one arrives in Minneapolis or St. Louis railway station at midnight, one can still send a telegram because the poor benighted Americans have to make the service pay. I do not know whether one can send a telegram at Victoria Station at half-past eleven at night; I may be doing Victoria an injustice, but I would not know where to look for a place from which to send one, and certainly no one looks for me.
I believe that the telegraph and telephone systems suffer from the burden of being the first nationalised industry in this country. I would say—and I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East, and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) would bear me out—that if the Post Office will accept the offer, I will guarantee to raise money to pay £5 million for the Post Office telephone and telegraph contract; and we will make it more efficient and cheaper, and will make money. That offer was once made 15 years ago by a group of financiers and I believe that it is still possible today. The Postmaster-General is a man of great vitality and, so far as I know, of great humanity. But he should create an imaginary competitive opponent. He should popularise the telegraph service. There is only one way of making anything pay and that is by increasing the productivity and reducing the price, and I ask the Postmaster-General to give some thought to that point.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: By leave of the House, I want to answer some of the points raised. The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) has, as usual, put forward the case very attractively, but when he talked of his U.S. experience I was astonished that he did not tell us how much he paid. The fact is that he would have to pay four times as much as is provided for in this Bill. I think that is an important point which he left out.
The hon. Member made a challenge which was made 15 years ago and if he adopted the policy of his own country of Canada and charged slightly over three times the charge which is proposed in the present Bill, on that basis he would be able to make a profit; but he would not be able to answer complaints that the poorer section of the community were being penalised at the very moment of their greatest stress, when they wanted to send an urgent message; and I do not think that we should treat this challenge as seriously as he put it forward.
The suggestion that we should merge the telephone and telegraph accounts is attractive, but I do not think we should adopt a system of merging in order to hide a loss on an important service. If people engaged in the telegraph service could always feel that their losses could be hidden, I am afraid that would make, not for efficiency, but for a good deal of inefficiency. I would rather that all the accounts were laid before us so that everybody can see what is the result of their efforts, and if the result is bad by one method, we should be able to stimulate them to produce a better method. The suggestion was made that there is something "phoney" in the figures, which seemed to me to be a reflection on the Public Accounts Committee who examined them in great detail and with great care. The Comptroller and Auditor-General is very close in his examination of these accounts.
The only other point to which I wish to refer is with regard to the Post Office and the spiral of rising prices. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to say that we were reducing charges. The Post Office more than any other section of industry, even socialised industries, has held off making increases in charges. We are the last in the queue and I am sorry that we cannot start the

process of stopping this spiral by reducing charges. On the other hand, we must look on the Post Office as a great business undertaking which has the job of balancing its budget. If we look at it in that way I consider it right that we should come to the House and ask for authority to pass on a degree of these increased costs which are completely outside our control.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, I want to ask him a question. He made some criticism of my hon. Friend and gave some figures about the cost of sending telegrams in the United States. Surely the Minister knows perfectly well that these comparisons are completely fallacious. If the Government like to devalue sterling in the most frantic fashion, as they have, obviously the prices are different. What is the right hon. Gentleman's authority for saying that, in relation to American prices, telegrams there are four times as much as they are in Britain? It is quite fallacious if we are comparing currencies.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have taken an example that compares very favourably with circumstances in this country. Taking that example of two places, 150 miles apart, the comparison is correct. I have no desire to score on that point. I think that our case rests—

Mr. Bracken: On what basis?

Mr. Ness Edwards: What we did was to take the present value of the dollar in the costs, but even without allowing for devaluation it is more than three times the amount we have provided for in this Bill.

Mr. Bracken: The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. It is not three times the amount. Devaluation cut the purchasing power of sterling in relation to the dollar in a most savage fashion by well over 30 per cent; and for the right hon. Gentleman, having devalued the £, or consented in a small way to it, to read out "phoney" figures is altogether wrong.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I cannot allow that to go by. I have tried to treat the House openly in this matter. There is no question of politics in this. We are dealing with a business situation and we should deal with it in a business-like way.


I think this Bill does provide some means of trying to get the Post Office on a proper basis.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote the figures to which he has been referring? What is the cost of a telegram in America with which he has been making a comparison?

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Royle.]

COAL INDUSTRY BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 30th May].

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 2.—(ADJUSTMENT OF COMPENSATION.)

Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 26, after "were," insert "to be."—[Mr. Pitman.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

4.28 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: This Amendment is put down to give the Minister an opportunity of making his intentions clear. He will remember that in the earlier stages he gave an undertaking to consider certain recommendations made by the Opposition. He said he would consider them and give an answer by Report stage. If this Bill goes through unamended, there will be no Report stage, and therefore we have put down this Amendment in the hope that the Minister will be able to give an answer as to what he proposes in the future stages of this Bill.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member and I appreciate the reason which led to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) and his hon. Friends to put down this Amendment. With permission I will, to use the words of the hon. and gallant Member, make my intentions clear. As I promised, I considered an Amendment to the first Clause of the Bill which was moved by the hon.

and gallant Gentleman when the Committee last met and I propose to put down a new Amendment which will, I hope—I can have no assurance about it—meet his point. Since, however, the Committee have passed Clause 1, I am advised that I should propose my Amendment on another day. For that purpose I will at a later stage move the re-committal of the Bill. That being so, I hope that hon. Members opposite may feel able to withdraw their Amendment.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for this statement. In your younger days, Sir Charles, you probably heard of the stern Victorian parents who asked the suitor for their handsome daughter to make his intentions clear. They were animated largely, I think, by financial considerations, rather than by any ideas of unsuitability or otherwise. I hope the Minister will make his intentions clear. We will certainly not put any barrier before the altar, provided that we see that the daughter is sufficiently well guaranteed.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I also thank the Minister, and I would add that we must wait until his Amendment is put down, but equally, if the right hon. Gentleman seeks the re-committal of the Bill, we must be entitled to seek re-committal of any passages on which we may desire further information.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not think we should pass this Clause without receiving some further information from the Minister. I am by no means satisfied that we are justified in accepting the figures of a transference of compensation from the Cannock Chase district to the South Staffordshire district. I believe that this is the first Bill which modifies to some extent the compensation provisions of the original Act. I am of the opinion that the more we go into the question of compensation to the coal-owners, the more we have to realise that, when we passed the original Bill, we made a very big mistake, in that the terms were over-generous. The more we examine the amount of money which is passing over to the coalowners, the more


we must agree that it has been something of a racket. The more we go into details of what is to be paid to the various companies the more the evidence accumulates to support that conclusion.
In submitting earlier Amendments to the Bill, the Opposition were arguing about the burdens that came as the result of the activities of the Coal Board, but the burdens that are being placed on the industry by the compensation Clauses and their working out are really a very big burden indeed. In Clause 2, which deals with the adjustment of compensation, we have a typical example of the burdens that are being placed on the coal industry in a certain district. In the Cannock Chase district, for example, the figure given is £5,142,000.
Let us look where this money is going. Who are the people who are to benefit as the result of the working out of this over-generous provision for the compensation of the coalowners? I have looked up some facts and figures about the Cannock Associated Collieries, Ltd., which, I presume, is to receive compensation under the Bill, and, in the "Stock Exchange Year Book," we find that the preference shareholders have already received their money back, because they have received 22s. for every £1 share, plus dividend from the 1st July to 30th December, 1948. The preference shareholders have, therefore, received more than the money which they invested in the industry: they have got 22s. for every £1.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): In this Clause, there is no reference to shareholders.

Mr. Hughes: Surely, Sir Charles, the shareholders are to receive the benefit of these payments; otherwise, the opposition would not have come from me, but from hon. Members opposite? I am discussing what happens to this £5,142,000, and I submit that this sum will percolate through to the shareholders in Cannock Associated Collieries. If this money is not going to go to the colliery shareholders, then there is a greater mystery still.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not directed to the shareholders in the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman's Amendment—in page 2, line 33, at the end, to add:
All payments under this section to shareholders in coal companies and coalowners in the Cannock Chase and South Staffordshire districts shall be registered and be open for public inspection at Somerset House,
is out of order; it is meaningless, and the hon. Gentleman must not try to make his speech on that Amendment now.

Mr. Hughes: I understand that, under Clause 2, which deals with the adjustment of compensation, we are approving of certain sums being paid to colliery shareholders, or being transferred to certain shareholders.

The Deputy-Chairman: There is no word about shareholders in Clause 2.

Mr. Hughes: This Clause is a mystery, and I think we should have an elucidation of it. Other hon. Members are also in doubt. Here is a Clause in the Bill apportioning the sum of £5,142,000 to the Cannock Chase district, and, if your Ruling, Sir Charles, is that this is not going to the shareholders, where is it going?

The Deputy-Chairman: To the Cannock Chase district.

Mr. Hughes: If it is going to the Cannock Chase district, I am speaking for the people who form part of that district and of the Cannock Chase Associated Collieries, Ltd. I am pointing out that the preference shareholders have already received compensation of 22s. per share.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think I should remind the hon. Gentleman that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" he can only talk about what is contained in the Clause.

Mr. Hughes: I want to protest on behalf of the preference shareholders. In line 26, it is stated that £5,142,000 is to be paid to the Cannock Chase district. I did not invent these figures, and I am arguing that we are not justified in supporting the Motion. I have already dealt with the preference shareholders. The ordinary shareholders—

The Deputy-Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to obey my Ruling. There is nothing whatever about shareholders in this Clause, and I am not going to allow that discussion.

Mr. Hughes: Am I entitled to argue that this district is receiving compensation?

The Deputy-Chairman: Certainly.

Mr. Hughes: In this district, certain interests have received a first distribution of 6s. 8d. per £1 share, and similar interests have also received a further distribution of 3s. 4d. per share. I maintain that already sufficient has been allotted to this district, and that we are not justifield in apportioning further sums to the people in this particular district. I know it is a very technical matter, but I have got the fundamentals.
This Clause also authorises the South Staffordshire district having £853,000. I say that this is too much, because under the provisions of the Act a sufficient burden has already been placed on the coal industry in the payment of compensation to certain companies. For example, there is a colliery concern known as Settle Speakman and Company. We are entitled to look at this in perspective, and to look at the past earnings of this concern to see whether we are justified in apportioning to them £853,000 referred to in this Clause.

Dr. Harriett Stross: Not that it makes any difference to the fundamental basis of my hon. Friend's argument, but I think I should correct him by pointing out that Settle Speakman and Company are based in North Staffordshire, not South Staffordshire.

Mr. Hughes: If my hon. Friend is right the Stock Exchange Year Book is wrong. Much as I listen to my hon. Friend with great deference and respect on matters medical, on this matter I prefer to take the evidence of the Stock Exchange Year Book. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) will agree with me that on these matters the Stock Exchange Year Book is an infallible authority.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Not wishing to increase the disorderliness of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I can only say that it is impossible for me to get mixed up in a dispute between the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), who certainly does not come from North Staffordshire and

who will certainly have no connection with it after the next General Election.

Mr. Hughes: I can hardly think that the right hon. Gentleman has shed the light that we expected to get from him. I will not go into great detail, but the company which is to receive this compensation has paid enormous dividends. Certainly, 20 per cent. plus a bonus of 10 per cent. in 1949, after nationalisation, is-an enormous dividend.

Mr. Bracken: What about the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?

Mr. Hughes: I submit, Sir Charles, that it would be completely out of order in this debate to discuss the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

The Deputy-Chairman: Discussion of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company is completely out of order, and what the hon. Gentleman is now saying is also completely out of order.

Mr. Hughes: The assets of this particular company, vested in the Coal Board, amount to £845,466; its share capital is £200,000. I therefore say that we are not justified in handing over further large sums of compensation to this company. This is a further illustration of the fact that the whole issue of compensation under nationalisation has become a racket and a ramp.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in his allegations about rackets and ramps. All I can say is that it is generally accepted that the Government made quite a good bargain in this matter.
I should like to ask the Minister one question. In dealing with the new allocation for these two districts, how much has his Ministry so far paid out in supplementary compensation, both to Cannock Chase and to South Staffordshire? Also, what is the proportion of compensation? It might affect the total amount. I think it is relevant to know what the Ministry has so far paid out in partial satisfaction.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think I can bring comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Aryshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), to all categories of shareholders, and to all hon. Members. The adjustment made by Clause 2 in no way affects the burden


laid on the coal industry for compensation by the 1946 Act. That was settled by that Act, and everything remains as it then was. This simply makes a minor adjustment between two parties, between some of the claimants. As all the claimants are agreed that it is just that this change should be made, and as the Central Valuation Committee desire it should be made I feel sure that the Committee would desire to support it.

Mr. Bracken: I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not encourage the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—whom the other night I rightly called the arch-druid—in this idea of "forward by default." The Minister talks about the "burden laid on the coal industry." Is it a burden if somebody else's property is taken? Why should a Minister of the Crown use such language in this Committee? Is it a burden when somebody else's property is taken away? [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman has something to say, would he mind getting up and saying it?

Mr. John Cooper: It is certainly a burden if it is rotten property.

Mr. Bracken: If it is rotten property the statements of the Coal Board are altogether inaccurate and misleading. I hope the Minister will not encourage the use of this language about burdens. When somebody else's property is taken away he surely should be paid something reasonable for it, and that is what the Government have done. It has not been generous, and I must say that it is tragic when a Minister of the Crown talks about the "burden laid on the coal industry" at a time when his colleague the Foreign Secretary is finding the greatest possible difficulty in getting justice for British investors in Persia.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I now have the information for which the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) asked. So far, the Ministry have paid out in compensation £41 million in cash and £45,600,000 in stock—a total of £86,600,000—and a further amount will be paid this month.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

To be read the Third time Tomorrow.

RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.

Clause 8.—(RESTRICTIONS ON PROCEEDINGS.)

4.50 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren): I beg to move, in page 9, line 28, after "expire," to insert:
or shall be terminated on a specified date before that time.
This Amendment, together with the following Amendment in line 29, gives effect to a promise the Minister gave in Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Minister undertook to make some Amendments of this kind, and we are grateful to him. I think they meet the general sense of the proposals made in Committee, and we on this side have certainly no objection to these words being inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 29, at end, insert "or terminated."—[Mr. Lindgren.]

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 32 and 33, and to insert:
notice has been given to the offender that the taking of such proceedings is being considered.
This Amendment arises partly from the recommendations of the Hobday Report. As that valuable Report has been so often referred to during the Committee stage and during the proceedings in the House, I hope that as this is in accordance with the views expressed in it the House will accept the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: There is one small point which perhaps the Minister can explain. The previous words were "notice in writing," and this Amendment simply says, "notice has been given." Surely, unless I misread it, this Amendment should also say "notice in writing"? Obviously, it cannot mean that verbal


notice will be given, that the ringing up of someone on the telephone would be sufficient? It would have to be in writing.

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, it would have to be in writing. I understand that it is unnecessary to state that in the Bill because Section 19 of the Rivers Board Act, 1948, specifies that the notice must be in writing.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am glad to have that on record, and, of course, we willingly accept the assurance of the Minister on the point. But we were a little uneasy about it, because it would be very awkward if there were no record of a notice reaching one, and if one were told, having done nothing about it, "You were rung up about it some days ago." In view of the Minister's undertaking, however, I do not think we should object to this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9.—(COMBINATION OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL OR SEWERAGE SYSTEMS.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 10, line 12, to leave out from "order," to the second "the," in line 21, and to insert:
(2) Any order made under paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection, if objected to by any of the local authorities concerned, shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure.
(3) Where the Minister makes an order under the said paragraph (b).
This is really a drafting Amendment, because the county council is not required to be specifically recorded in the paragraph.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 22, leave out "direction," and insert "order."—[Mr. Lindgren.]

Mr. Arthur Colegate: I beg to move, in page 10, line 25, to leave out "determined by the Minister," and to insert:
referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1950.
The reason for advocating this particular Amendment, which has been put down under advice from the local authorities, is that under the subsection as at present drafted the local authorities would have no appeal at all against the financial terms eventually determined by the Minister in default of agreement. In the case of a development corporation, which would act

to a large extent as the agent for the Minister of Local Government and Planning, this would put the other local authorities in a very unfair position, because, in effect, the Minister would be deciding a question in which he himself had an interest. Therefore, the local authorities think it would be very much more satisfactory, if agreement were not reached, for the matter to be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1950. I think that is a very reasonable request on their part, and I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Nugent: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Lindgren: I am surprised to get the information from the hon. Gentleman that this is in accordance with the desires of the local authorities, because that is not the information which I have. At the moment, the Minister has power under the Public Health Act to approve when local authorities agree to a joint sewerage scheme. Under this Bill—for the purposes of the prevention of pollution and the control of pollution—the Minister has power to direct that such a scheme shall be a joint scheme. Where that is so, and there is disagreement on terms, it is subject to the Minister coming in and settling the terms with the local authorities.
That has been a process which has been going on for, I was about to say, centuries, but at least for generations. The old Ministry of Health, the Local Government Board and Government Departments, generally, have had more experience in regard to this matter than anything else owing to the length of time that public health and such matters have been under discussion with them. Surely, the better way of coming to an agreement is through the Government Department and its inspectors rather than by forcing on the local authorities, as this Amendment proposes, arbitration, which can be very costly indeed.
My information is that the local authorities prefer the method of discussion and negotiation between themselves, and for my right hon. Friend or his successors, in the event of disagreement, to appoint an inspector to go into the matter with the local authorities and to come to an agreement. That, as I understand it, is the view of the local authorities,


and, that being so, I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his Amendment. We prefer agreement rather than arbitration, which is very costly.

Mr. Colegate: May I clear up one point at once? I have here a letter from the County Councils' Association, dated 24th May, in which they press this point. I cannot understand where the hon. Gentleman has got his information to the effect that the local authorities are not in favour of this Amendment. On the face of it, his information cannot be true, and he must be misinformed by the Department. The other point which—

Mr. Lindgren: May I butt in for a moment? That letter may be from the County Councils' Association, but as the hon. Gentleman must know, with his great experience of local government, county councils are not normally sewerage authorities, and in very rare instances, except on joint schemes for the provision of finance in rural districts, are they involved. In those districts they are not the operating authorities, but are merely contributing bodies to the rural districts.

Mr. Colegate: It still remains untrue to say that the local authorities are not in favour of arbitration. The insertion of the word "some" might put a little more truth into it. I do not understand the Parliamentary Secretary's reference to what has been going on for generations, because never before to my knowledge has the Minister—in the old days it would have been the Local Government Board—had a personal interest in the matter as he will, in effect, have in the new development corporations. That is the significant difference.

5.0 p.m.

The Minister of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Dalton): The Development Corporation has been expressly mentioned, but I do not understand why the hon. Member thinks that is very relevant. I accept at once, of course, his statement that he has had a letter from the County Councils' Association. I have not had any representations from them on the matter, but if this Amendment were accepted local authorities would be found to be put to unreasonable expense on arbitration, such as legal fees and so on. It is not at all difficult for any Minister holding this office finally to have an agreement with the authorities. He would

act as an unofficial and free arbitrator, and I should have thought it very much better than going through the other procedure. Personally, I have had no representation in favour of this proposal.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Obviously there is a slight difficulty here, in that the letter from the County Councils' Association has not come under the personal consideration of the Minister. I think it might be better for my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) to withdraw the Amendment if the Minister would undertake to have some search made for the letter and afford the County Councils' Association the opportunity to put their view between now and the next stage. We understand, of course, that the Minister will make no commitment on this matter—indeed, on this question there might be an unholy alliance between the two Front Benches. Having been a Minister, I look with uneasiness on procedure which would burden us with too much arbitration machinery, as against what, as a Minister at the time, I always thought the simple and just expedient of determination by myself. That view is not always shared by everybody else, and the County Councils' Association quite rightly put the point forward.
In view of the fact that correspondence from an important body has been mentioned and has certainly reached some hon. Members on this side of the House, I should be grateful if the Minister would undertake to look at it before the Bill goes through its next stage.

Mr. Dalton: I am very willing to do that, without any commitment of course; if we take the view of one side of local authorities, we must also take the view of any other which might be competent.

Mr. Colegate: A little confusion has arisen because this is a slightly revised form of an Amendment put down by myself and my hon. Friends in Committee. I think the Minister will find there was an official letter on that occasion from the County Councils' Association, but in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 11, line 23, at the end, to insert:


but any reference to a stream includes a reference to the channel or bed of a stream which is for the time being dry;
This Amendment will put beyond doubt the point into which the Minister promised to look further during the Committee stage. It makes clear that the Bill covers putting polluting matter in the bed of a stream, though that bed may be dry at the time. When the stream begins to flow again there might be some very bad pollution caused to the main stream. I see the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) smiling, but we mention "channel" in the Amendment because this is a case where a channel is a channel and not a stream.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We welcome this Amendment all the more because it is a sign of grace on the part of the Minister. He assured us, according to column 297 of Standing Committee A, that it was not necessary. However, he now finds it better to insert it, which shows it is often wise to press things on the attention of Ministers even though one is assured in the most concrete terms that they are not necessary. We are now all at one, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge Bourke) has at least a minnow out of the great shoal of fish in which he dipped his net during an earlier stage of the Bill.
I am sure that the ordinary man in the street, shown a dry channel along which nothing has flowed for the past 18 months, as is often the case on the Downs, for instance—a part of the country the Minister and I know very well—might feel a little uneasiness if he were told that that might be regarded by the Government as a stream or river. He might wonder if he could water any imaginary horses or cattle at this imaginary river.

Major Legge-Bourke: So far from being able to congratulate the Minister on this Amendment I must say he has shown quite clearly that he has no idea of the true meaning of the word "channel." He has included in the definition of "stream" the word "channel," whereas I was trying to include in the definition of "channel" the word "stream." He has done precisely the opposite of what I wanted him to do. However, it is nice to feel that he now knows of the existence of channels, whether usual or unusual.
Since the Amendment was put down, another point has occurred to me and I ask the Minister to look into it. Now that he includes channels or beds of streams which happen to be dry, will he look carefully into the Bill to see how that applies to a case at which my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) and I were looking at earlier? I think the Minister assumes that these beds and channels are normally full of water but happen to run dry, but wash-lands are normally dry and are occasionally flooded deliberately by catchment boards to ease the situation higher up the river.
It may be found—and this is what I ask the Minister to examine—that under Clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill that is placing an unwarrantable restriction on the ordinary conduct of affairs in those washlands when they are flooded. We want to make sure that we are not creating an unnecessary offence in those cases. The Minister may find it necessary to insert an Amendment when the Bill is considered in another place to exclude washlands from this category.

Mr. David Renton: I consider that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has raised a point of serious practical importance. I happened to go on an inspection of the Middle Level, which is mainly in the constituency of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ise of Ely and is partly in mine, where there were numerous examples in these great stretches of smaller drains running parallel with the main ones. The smaller drains were temporarily dry for stretches of some miles and the flow perhaps controlled by floodgates with the intention of flooding at a later stage.
Unless very great clarity of thought is applied to this confusion might well arise. There is the further point about the old natural river beds which, so far as we can tell at the moment have been permanently diverted but, nevertheless, remain as old, natural courses, and which one day might be found useful as part of a flood protection scheme. I know it is very difficult to legislate for every detail in these matters, but it is desirable that the Department concerned should keep these possible difficulties in mind.

Colonel Clarke: Following on what has been said by my hon.


Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) I should like a clear definition between washes, such as one finds in Huntingdonshire, deliberately intended to accommodate flood water and the old courses of rivers, now straightened out and shortened, which generally have some flow through them. I do not think they can be compared at all. Those old rivers may be natural or artificial, but they are quite different from the washes, and I think they definitely form parts of streams. From the point of view of amenity they are a very valuable part of the streams, and if they were excluded from the Bill great damage to fishing and depreciation of amenity would ensue.

Mr. Dalton: This illustrates the difficulty of trying to define these things more and more completely. I said in Committee that we were advised that this Amendment was not necessary. None the less, although the Amendment is not strictly necessary, we have moved it to remove any possible doubt. It now appears that the insertion of the Amendment may have created further possible doubt. However, we will look into it. It is a bit tricky to know where to stop the continuing cumulation of definition, at the end of which more doubts may have been created than if the matter had been left in its original simple form. However, we will look at this again.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move in page 11, line 28, at the end, to insert "land or."
During our discussion in Committee doubt was expressed as to whether or not the word "premises" was wide enough to cover all effluents from farms and horticulture. This Amendment is moved to remove any doubt and to make it quite clear that "trade effluent" covers all the discharges from agricultural establishments, both land and buildings.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 11, line 40, at the end, to insert:
(4) Where under any provision of this Act an order of the Minister is to be subject to special parliamentary procedure if objected to by any authority specified in that provision, the Minister before making the order shall give the authorities so specified notice of his intention to do so, setting out a provisional draft of the order and stating the time, not being less than twenty-eight days, within which

objections may be made; and the order shall not be subject to special parliamentary procedure if—

(a) it is made in terms of the draft or with such modifications only as appear to the Minister to be immaterial for this purpose; and
(b) either no objections are made by any such authority within the time so stated or all objections so made are withdrawn;
but in any other case the order shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure.
This is a drafting Amendment and also an interpretation Amendment with regard to the Parliamentary procedure for orders under Clause 9 (1, b).

Amendment agreed to.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 12, line 1, to leave out from the beginning, to "shall," in line 2, and to insert:
 Nothing contained in this Act.
This is a drafting Amendment which makes clear beyond all doubt that the common law rights are not affected.

Mr. Nugent: This Amendment has been described as a drafting Amendment, but I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the implications behind it really alter the whole complexion of the Bill. What it does is to give effect to what was omitted from the original Clause—Clause 4, if I recollect rightly—in the Bill as originally drafted with regard to the modification of the common law right of the individual. After very lengthy discussion in Committee the Minister eventually agreed that it was proper that the common law right of the riparian owner should stand without any condition or reduction in any way.
I think we are all grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the great weight of public opinion in this matter. Riparian owners interested both in amenity and in fisheries have felt that the common law right to receive the water at their point of the river in a clean and pure condition was fundamental to their right of ownership, and from a practical point of view it was essential in order to keep the fish alive. If this Bill, which is supposed to assist the prevention of pollution in rivers, were to take away this common law right of the individual, whatever it might do in giving power to the river boards, it would, on balance, have reduced the chances of keeping rivers clean and, indeed, of improving their condition.
I feel that this small Amendment should not pass without comment. The altered shape of the Bill is so much more acceptable to everybody, and, by allowing the common law right to stand as it did before, it will enable the river boards in criminal courts and in civil courts and the private individual in the civil courts to act in parallel. In the past they have often acted most effectively in parallel. They will, therefore, together be a most strong combination in bringing about the result for which we all hope. For that reason we very much welcome this final completion of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPLACED BY THIS ACT.)

Mr. York: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out line 6.
The purpose of this Amendment is to prevent the repeal of the West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Act, 1894. Anybody with any knowledge of river pollution will admit that the West Riding Rivers Board and their successors have been most successful in carrying out the difficult job of cleaning out the rivers in the highly industrialised area of the West Riding of Yorkshire. They have done it because they have the powers. The West Riding Rivers Board obtained this Act of 1894 because under the then existing powers they found that they were quite incapable of doing the job which had been set them. They therefore came to Parliament and were given these powers, and they have operated them with great success ever since. They have done the job which they set out to do, and they have cleaned up the rivers.
The Minister will agree that the rivers in Yorkshire, in spite of the heavy industrialisation, are remarkably free from pollution. The Yorkshire Ouse River Board, which is the late administrator of the powers of the Act, were able to carry out their function without any serious difficulty and, indeed, with a considerable amount of co-operation both from the local authorities and the traders in the area. The point I wish to emphasise is that they were able to obtain that co-operation, and the good feeling which now exists today within the area is because they were armed with the powers to carry out the law.
There have been no complaints in recent years of any precipitate action on the part of the Board. Nor have there been any complaints for a long time of any abuses of the statutory powers which the Board have obtained. Yet the Board have never hesitated for a moment to use those statutory powers and to take legal proceedings if any matter has required that action.
The Board welcome this Bill because, although it will not in any way increase their powers, it will bring those other parts of the country which are of a lower standard up to the standard which we have set ourselves in Yorkshire, and I may say also in Lancashire which has a similar Act and which has been able, through that Act, to carry out similar good work. They were generally in sympathy with the Bill until it reached the Committee stage and then, when the Government moved or accepted—I do not remember which—that most restrictive Amendment to Clause 8, in which the Minister has to agree to any prosecution under the Bill, they began to take fright and to realise that all the work which they had put in, all the cleaning up processes which they had carried out, would be endangered by this unwelcome and, in our view, unnecessary restriction of their powers.
As the Bill stands, the Yorkshire Rivers Board are faced with one additional restriction on their powers which, in their view, will prevent them from carrying on the steady improvement in the condition of the rivers in their area. They asked, therefore—and that is why I am moving the Amendment—that the Government should not repeal their private Act of 1894, at any rate until the new Bill comes into full force after the end of the restrictions mentioned in Clause 8.
The Surrey County Council have obtained—how, I am not quite sure—a privileged position in this matter; they have been able to obtain exclusion from the provisions of the Bill. The Yorkshire Board are in exactly the same position as the Surrey County Council. Indeed, the Yorkshire Board have far greater practical experience in these matters than have the Surrey County Council, and I would go so far as to say, without exact knowledge, that they have a far more difficult job to perform than have the Surrey County Council. I


therefore maintain that the Yorkshire Board should be treated in exactly the same way as the Surrey County Council.
One of the reasons given for the repeal of this private Act is that this Bill is a consolidating Measure. Of course, for a layman like myself it is extremely useful to have the law consolidated so that we do not have to delve so much into other Acts of Parliament, but if a valid reason can be given why that consolidation is not in the interests of the object behind the Bill, then that seems to me to be a perfectly good reason why it should be delayed. I admit that it is only a question of delay until the new Bill is in full operation, without the restrictions of Clause 8.
It will also be argued, I imagine, that under the River Boards Act of 1948 the boundaries of the Ouse Rivers Board were altered. That is so, but if the West Riding Act is left in operation the powers given to that Board will operate only within the new area of the Ouse Rivers Board. That is, in fact, not a very important alteration because the areas left out are not areas of heavy industrialisation; they can easily be left out, while leaving full powers to the Rivers Board within that heavily industrialised area of the West Riding.
The Rivers Board have been operating efficiently throughout the last few decades. During the passage of the Bill their fears have been gradually but considerably increased owing to the number of small items which have crept into the Bill and also owing to the large item which crept into Clause 8 and which weakened the power of the Rivers Board to do their job effectively and efficiently. For instance, I noticed from the debate on Thursday that it appeared to people who are knowledgeable in this matter that, where the standard of purity had not been laid down, then polluters would be given virtual immunity from prosecution. Under the private Act that is not the case.
The Yorkshire Rivers Board tell me that if the Act of 1876 and their own Act of 1894 are repealed they will be unable to function properly and effectively, because they will be deprived, temporarily, at any rate, of their weapons against actual and potential polluters, who will be encouraged to shelter against

proceedings behind Government consent, behind restrictions on the doing of the necessary work at factories or at other places to prevent pollution. They would be able to shelter behind the plea of scarcity of material.
The right hon. Gentleman would be most unwise to take away the teeth from this and other equally efficient river boards before he has provided a new set for them. He knows very well that the Yorkshire Board have done and are doing the job as well as and probably better than boards in any other part of the country.

Mr. Oakshott: Oh!

Mr. York: If the hon. Member would come up to Yorkshire he would have to admit that what I have said is true. If this Bill is passed, then during the first seven years, or possibly longer, the Yorkshire Board will be in a worse position than they are in today. I am sure the Minister cannot approve of that. The Yorkshire Board feel that the standard of purity will fall and possibly some, if not a great deal, of the work which they have done over the past 50 years or more may be undone.
I ask the Minister to think about this matter seriously and to leave the West Riding Act in operation at any rate for a period. If at some future date, when this Bill is in full operation, and when he is able to see that all is well, he feels that the time has come when he is able to do away with the West Riding Act, then he can do so by a simple matter of repeal. That is not a very difficult operation. I ask the Minister to think again before he repeals this Act.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Colegate: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is true that this Amendment affects only a relatively short period, namely, the period until the restrictions in Clause 8 are done away with at the end of seven years, but the Yorkshire Board have done a very fine job and many people who know the conditions there realise that to have done as much as it has done represents a very fine achievement. I think that it may well be that many river boards may consult the Yorkshire Board about the methods which they have used. Since the Surrey County Council have


succeeded in softening the heart, apparently, of the Minister, then I hope that the same warm-hearted gesture will be shown to the West Riding Board.

Mr. Lindgren: Let me say, first of all, that my right hon. Friend and I and the Department appreciate the very fine work which has been done by the Yorkshire River Board. However, to claim, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrogate (Mr. York) did, with his pride of county, that the rivers of Yorkshire are remarkably free from pollution—

Mr. York: I did not say that.

Mr. Lindgren: I made a note of the hon. Gentleman's words. "Remarkably free from pollution" were the words he used.
Inasmuch as they are in a better condition than they would have been but for the activities of the Board, who have done their work exceptionally well, I agree with the hon. Gentleman; but I really think that behind this is a little piece of jealousy as between North and South and the question: If Surrey can come out, why cannot Yorkshire come out? I hope to show the hon. Gentleman that that is for totally different reasons. I would admit that there is no comparison, in point of size or responsibility, between the Surrey and Yorkshire boards. Surrey is concerned with three tiny streams of small importance compared with rivers of the importance of the River Thames or of the Yorkshire rivers. It is a matter purely of administration.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), the other day was eloquent almost to the point of being cross. Indeed, in the very happy conduct of this Bill so far he got nearer than anyone to being cross. It was in regard to an Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) which would have given certain industrial interests and local authorities, and particularly local authorities, certain protection. That was last Thursday. Because of the general pressure, and because my right hon. Friend sensed the feeling of the House we agreed to look again at the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle in conjunction with an Amendment of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent), which were to give powers even greater than those allowed already under the Bill.
Contained within the Yorkshire Act which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrogate wants retained are powers with regard to pollution which are far and away in excess of those that were proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle which horrified hon. Members in all parts of the Chamber except, perhaps, one or two a little concerned about industrial activities. In so far as this Bill is concerned the Yorkshire Board have far greater powers in their good work for preventing pollution than they have had before—except, it is true, that they have to come to the Minister before starting prosecutions in relation to certain local authorities and trade effluents for the next seven years until bylaw standards are made. That is common to the whole of the country.
However, the main standard is higher than it is under the local Act, and, therefore, the main standard the Yorkshire Board have got to work to give them even greater power where there is an offending body. If they want to prosecute they must come to the Minister for approval. I do not think the Yorkshire Board or any other board would be unreasonable at any time; but it is true that we are in very difficult circumstances, and many local authorities in particular—and, I am certain, industrial undertakings, too—would be in difficulty in respect to materials and plant and their availability, and it would be unfair—I am not suggesting the Yorkshire Board would do that—but it would be unfair if the Yorkshire Board or any other board were to prosecute a local authority which did not put in plant it could not obtain—or an industrial concern, for that matter.
Therefore, to protect local authorities and industrialists against the small chance of a river board's taking an unfair action, the boards have to come to the Minister for consent. That is the only way in which the Yorkshire Board are in any way the worse off.
So far as the Surrey County Council is concerned, I am not quite sure that I should be in order in dealing with it, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of in any way giving preference to Surrey over Yorkshire. The matter is dealt with in the next Amendment, which is in the name of my right hon. Friend—in page 13, to leave out


line 9. It is purely a question of administration. We have Wandsworth and the County Borough of Croydon and Surrey all involved, and it is for the purposes of administration that we shall move the next Amendment.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept the assurance that we are not in any way taking anything away from the powers of the Yorkshire Board—except, as we admit, that they have to come to the Minister now for approval for prosecution; and as they would never undertake prosecutions which were not justified we are, in fact, taking nothing away. Because the standard they will be required to work to is higher under the Bill than under that Act the Yorkshire Board will have more power. In the light of these considerations, and as the hon. Gentleman has made his point, and as there have been congratulations on the work the Yorkshire Board have done, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. York: I think that that was one of the most unsatisfactory—and, I am sure, the lightest—attempts to answer an argument I have ever heard, and if the Bill had been conducted in that way during its passage through the House I should not have been surprised at the strictures levelled at the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). First of all the Parliamentary Secretary started with a gratuitous misquotation of my remarks. He then went on to talk about river boards being jealous of one another, which certainly, so far as I know, does not enter into the matter at all. I had no notion and said nothing in my speech about whether Surrey was a greater area or a lesser area. What I am concerned only with is the question of the pollution of rivers and the cleaning up of the rivers.
The hon. Gentleman did not try to answer the case, because he knows perfectly well he cannot answer it. There is no answer, and if he is fool enough to think—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If he is unwise enough to think that if boards have to go to Whitehall to get permission to prosecute he is going to get that same speedy and reasonable conduct between traders and the boards as we have got now under our local Act, then he had

better think again, because he will not get it. Anybody knows that when something is centralised, as this is being centralised for the next seven years, the results decline in their value.
I have done what I can to make the Government see sense in this matter. They refuse to see sense. If we have, therefore, a decline in the standards of purity in the Yorkshire rivers it will be the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend and the Department concerned that will be entirely to blame.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out line 9.
This is an Amendment, which was referred to earlier, by which we exclude the Surrey County Council Act from the Schedule. The special powers of the Surrey County Council in this connection apply particularly to three small tributaries of the Thames—the Wandle, the Hogsmill and the Beverley Brook. These are not of any great significance and none of them compares with the major industrial rivers or with the Thames itself.
This Amendment is really necessary because of the problem that we have with the County Borough of Croydon along the general stretch of the river, and with the Borough of Wandsworth on one side and the Surrey County Council on the other. For the purpose of administration, it would be to the general advantage if the Surrey Act remained in its present form, and I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Nugent: On behalf of the Surrey County Council, I should like to express thanks that they have been allowed to keep their Act, if only for the rather special considerations which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned. The hon. Gentleman will recall that in Committee I did not press this matter. I simply asked that there should be consultation. I trust that in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. York), with his Yorkshire Act, there has been consultation and that the exact circumstances have been examined. The Parliamentary Secretary will recall that it was after consultation had taken place that it was decided that it was advisable to retain the Surrey Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 12 and 13.
The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the Lancashire County Council (Rivers Board and General Powers) Act, 1938, should not be repealed by this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to special circumstances in the case of Surrey. I hope to persuade him that there are special circumstances also in the case of Lancashire.
I think I should begin by saying that there is, of course, nothing irrevocable in the step that I am asking the House to take this afternoon. It would always be possible, under paragraph 11 of the Second Schedule, for the Minister at any time to make an order to amend or repeal any local Act. I have no doubt that in due course if my hon. Friend is able to accept the Amendment, it will be decided in the interest of uniformity that the Lancashire Act should ultimately be repealed.
The special circumstances to which I refer are especially the particular complexity of the problem in the area of the Mersey River Board. One example is that of the rivers which flow into Manchester which accept the discharge from 133 sewage disposal works and 232 trade premises. It must be apparent from those figures that the difficulty of framing bylaws to cope with the rivers in this area will be a heavy task, and it will be possible only after a great deal of research to frame bylaws even covering quite short sections of the water courses concerned.
In these circumstances, the Mersey Rivers Board are anxious to retain their full powers under the Lancashire County Council (Rivers Board and General Powers) Act, 1938, until it is possible to frame the bylaws and to set up the machinery to put them into operation. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this very reasonable Amendment.

Dr. Barnett Stross: In order that we may have an answer from the Minister, I beg formally to second the Amendment.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren: For the same reasons that I asked the House not to accept the

Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. York), I have to ask my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment. While I am on my feet, and because the hon. Member for Harrogate was rather rude to me when we were discussing the previous Amendment, I should like to state categorically that exactly as Surrey were consulted, Yorkshire were consulted in regard to their rivers. Lancashire were not specially consulted. They were only consulted collectively with the other river boards.

Mr. York: May we be told the dates of those consultations? Did they take place before the deputation came to the Minister?

Mr. Lindgren: I cannot give the date, but I have taken the trouble to ascertain that there was specific consultation on this matter.
With reference to the Amendment, the same argument applies as that which applied in the case of Yorkshire. The only disadvantage, if it be a disadvantage, under which the boards will be placed is that they will have to come to the Minister for sanction for prosecutions during the initial period of seven years or until bylaw standards are fixed. On that point which is the only one in which their powers are less—under the Bill their general powers are greater—I think it is agreed that we are in a difficult period and that local authorities and traders have difficulty in meeting special standards which are set.
It is equally true, as shown by the operation of the various boards during the past 10 years or so, that the boards are reasonable in what they require either of local authorities or industry. If they are satisfied that local authorities or industrialists are doing everything they can to maintain a good standard, the boards do not attempt to prosecute. The fact that we have been so free from prosecutions during that period proves the point, The same will apply when the powers pass to my right hon. Friend and his successors.
I am certain that the boards will not ask for permission to prosecute unless they are justified. Equally, if they are justified, my right hon. Friend will give sanction for prosecution. That is the only way in which the powers of the boards are curtailed. The Bill brings Yorkshire and


Lancashire into line with the rest of the country. All the river boards in the rest of the country have to ask permission from my right hon. Friend. The Bill puts everybody in the same position. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment, although it will mean that in that one way Lancashire will be a little worse off—in theory but not in practice.

Mr. York: I should like to comment on the consultation that has gone on between the various river boards and the Ministry. It is probably true, from the information I have, that the Surrey County Council were consulted. I do not know whether the Lancashire County Council were consulted, but I am informed directly by the other boards that no consultation took place. They said that they had not been consulted directly but that the Minister had referred to them as a very successful anti-pollution authority. It appears to me that the Ministry were remiss in not calling into consultation these important and hardworking bodies before any action was taken which would seriously affect their working. I hope that we shall not have further statements like this made in the House by a Minister.

Mr. Lindgren: Equally, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make statements without having all the facts. We have had a very happy time on this Bill, and his rude intervention was the first time that we had had any discord, either during the Second Reading, the Committee stage or the Report stage. I had at the back of my mind the information that there had been consultations with the Yorkshire board, and I took the opportunity, through an hon. Friend, to ascertain from the Departmental officials whether there had been consultations, and my information from them was that between the Committee stage and the Report stage they were seen twice by officials of my Ministry.

Mr. York: That was a deputation from the river board to the Ministry.

Mr. Lindgren: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not contradict. They were seen separately on two occasions between the Committee stage and the Report stage.

Mr. York: At their request.

Mr. Lindgren: It does not matter at whose request. So far as Lancashire is concerned, the consultation was jointly with the river boards and was not a specific consultation.

Mr. Dalton: I think the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. York) was gravely misinformed.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In view of the earlier remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary with reference to Lancashire, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 21 and 22, and to insert:
(which shall be made by statutory instrument and, if objected to by any authority authorised to enforce this Act and having functions under the local Act or statutory order, or by any local authority having such functions, shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure).
It was suggested that the Amendments in page 16, lines 42 and 47, might be considered with this Amendment. These Amendments give effect to the Minister's undertaking in the closing stages of the discussion in Committee to introduce Amendments to provide that orders made under the First and Second Schedules shall be subject to special Parliamentary procedure. That is faithfully carried out in these Amendments.

Mr. Nugent: I am glad to see that these Amendments give effect to the undertaking which was given in Committee. I should perhaps say that there have been one or two previous undertakings of the same kind, which have introduced special Parliamentary procedure on other not dissimilar matters, and which have been passed on the nod. That is a point of some importance because those concerned with these local Acts, particularly in connection with the Thames Conservancy and the Lee Conservancy, were anxious that local Acts that may be affected should not go by default simply on an order which, in view of the enormous number of orders that come before the House, might be missed.
Now that the hon. Gentleman has conceded that special Parliamentary procedure shall be employed, that does ensure that the matter will come positively before the House, and that the House will have


the chance of considering it on its merits before deciding whether any of these local Acts should be in any way affected. I personally hope that the Thames and Lee Conservancy Acts will not be brought under this procedure at any time, because I believe that in their special circumstances they should be left with their special Acts; In any event, I am glad to see these Amendments, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for fulfilling an undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL AND OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 14, line 5, to leave out "three and," and to insert "to."
This is a drafting Amendment consequential on the re-numbering of the Clauses in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 14, to leave out lines 17 to 20.
This Amendment gives the power of entry to boats for inspection. The omission of the words referred to in the Amendment gives that power of entry, the purpose of which is to prevent pollution or anticipated pollution that is likely to arise from ships and barges which enter the waters over which the boards have control.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I understand that it is the Minister's contention that if these words were left in, they would weaken the powers to obtain samples and so on, and that their omission is to ensure that the Act will really be observed.

Mr. Lindgren: That is particularly so in so far as harbour and harbour authorities are concerned. It has special reference when the Act is extended, as I hope that it will be, to tidal waters. So far as the Bill is concerned now, I am advised that the power is there with regard to non-tidal waters, but that for harbour and tidal waters this power will be required.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am grateful to the Minister for extending his explanation. In so far as the Amendment extends these powers and brings nearer the effective control of harbour and tidal waters, we all welcome it. I am not quite sure why the provision was originally inserted,

since it is the Minister's intention that it should now be left out; but, for my part, I am not objecting to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 14, line 25, to leave out "omission of," and to insert "substitution of the words 'after consultation with the river board,' for."
The purpose of paragraph 4 (1) of the Second Schedule is to enable the Ministers, when asked by a river Board to confirm bylaws, to amend those bylaws if they think fit without the consent of the board. The Amendment does not detract from the Ministers' powers to amend bylaws but provides that they shall consult with the river boards if they propose to amend a bylaw which has been submitted to them. It makes clear what was always the intention, that although Ministers are not required to agree with the river boards, they are required to consult with them and to inform them of their intentions to amend bylaws.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 14, line 30, to leave out "Minister," and to insert "Ministers."
There are consequential Amendments in page 14, lines 32 and 33. These Amendments give effect to a promise made by my right hon. Friend in Committee that bylaws made by the river boards under the Bill shall be confirmed jointly by the Minister of Local Government and Planning and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Colonel Clarke: I am delighted to see the Amendment. I was one of those who on Second Reading raised this specific point. Remembering that the River Boards Bill was sponsored by the Minister of Agriculture, we were naturally disappointed when this Bill came in without his assistance. After all, this Bill has been shown in its progress through the House to be largely concerned with fish, that being one of the reasons for cleaning up the rivers—and the Minister of Agriculture is also Minister of Fisheries.
6.0 p.m.
As I understand it, this Amendment ensures that the bylaws made require confirmation from both the Minister of Local Government and Planning and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries


and it also amends the River Boards Act, 1948, to a certain extent. Apart from the question of fisheries, the Minister of Agriculture is concerned in other directions as well. Today many farmers have to fence their cattle from the streams that run through their farms, and have to use piped water, laid at considerable expense, because pollution prevents them from using the unlimited gallons passing through their farms. That is a very wasteful and distressing thing in the countryside, and for that reason the Minister of Agriculture should be brought into the matter. I am sure that the Minister of Local Government and Planning will find his assistance very valuable. I do not think there is any more to be said about it. I am glad there is this addition to the Bill, and it is one of considerable moment and importance.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As a result of some representations that were made in Committee, the Minister has made this concession. He pleaded then, as is always proper for a Minister to plead, the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility—that Ministers' responsibility is a collective one and they do not act independently of each other. However, that is not always conclusive, because there are Departments. I happen to have occupied both the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Health, and I found that if I had an Act to plead in favour of consultation, I was in a stronger position that if I had no such Act. I remember a couplet by Sagittarius, who was not of my way of thinking, but who composed this very useful couplet about the activities of the Minister without Portfolio.
He sends his memoranda far
On Health and Labour, Peace and War,
To which Departments' answer is
It is no business of his.
That sometimes is an answer to another's Minister's objections.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 14, line 32, leave out "Minister." and insert "Ministers."

In line 33, at end, insert:
(3) Nothing in section thirty-four of the said Act of 1948 shall enable the powers of the Ministers under that Act in relation to the making of bye-laws under this Act to be exercised by one of them without the other.

(4) In this paragraph the expression "the Ministers" means the Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

In line 40, leave out from "two," to "eight," in line 41, and insert "to."—[Mr. Lindgren.]

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 15, line 27, to leave out "four weeks," and to insert "two months."
This Amendment follows the acceptance during Committee of an Amendment which altered the period in which notice of discharge must be given to a river board, and the Amendment brings into line the paragraph covering the transitional period.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 16, line 12, leave out "three and," and insert "to."

In line 42, at end, insert:
(2) Any order made under this paragraph, with respect to any local Act or statutory order, if objected to by any authority authorised to enforce this Act and having functions under the local Act or statutory order, or by any local authority having such functions, shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure.

In line 47, leave out from "instrument," to end of line 49.—[Mr. Lindgren.]

Third Schedule.—(REPEALS.)

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 17, line 9, to leave out "section," and to insert "sections one and."
The effect of this Amendment is to include Section I as well as Section 7 of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876. There is no very great substance in this Amendment. It simply is to keep in the short title of the Bill, which I should have thought would be a good thing to do. I notice that in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Bill, Clause 1 is kept in so as to retain the short title, and I think the right hon. Gentleman may well think this is convenient.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Dalton: I am advised that this Amendment is not necessary. Section 3 of the Short Titles Act, 1896, provides that, notwithstanding the repeal of an enactment giving a short title to an Act, the Acts may, without prejudice to any


other mode of citation, continue to be cited by that short title. I hope that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nugent: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's very resourceful reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 17, leave out lines 23 to 34.

In page 18, leave out lines 3 to 5.—[Mr. Dalton.]

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I will not detain the House long at this stage, but I should like to say that the process by which this Bill was passed into law has been very happy, and that we have been co-operative with negligible exceptions. In Committee we were 99 per cent. happy. I had to take over a Bill, in the shaping of which I have had no part and about which I had to learn as I went along, and I had the assistance of a great number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, with the result that we have a Measure, which will be of very great value for the purification of our rivers, and I hope the river boards will be able in a comparatively short time to make full use of the powers proposed to be conferred upon them under this Bill.
It would be inappropriate to speak further now about the various matters we have discussed. This is a non-party Measure in the fullest sense, and extremely helpful contributions have been made by many of my hon. Friends and by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I therefore trust that before long this Bill may pass into law and fully justify the confidence we have placed in it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is true that this has been a non-party Bill in the fullest sense of the word. Argument has proceeded rather up and down, than across, the Floor of the House. I do not think that the Minister can complain even if an occasional acerbity has crept in at some small point. Those on both sides of the House who have taken an interest in this matter have felt very keenly about it. I have been rather surprised, indeed, at the way in which Members have been able to restrain their passions.
As the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said, this is a matter of the parish pump. There is nothing in the whole world that produces such violent and vehement controversy as something which affects the parish pump. It is also true that there are few things that more directly affect the comfort and the health of the community than the state of the parish pump. A leakage of sewage into the sources of supply of the parish pump will often do more damage than the most ill-advised piece of legislation on the part of this House.
The Measure is a framework which will have to be filled in later. It is almost more shadowy than that. It is a hope, an experiment, and only some years hence shall we be able to tell whether our hopes have been justified and our experiment successful. I think it is true that under previous Acts a great deal more might have been done if the powers then given had been enforced. What we are trying to do is to set up an authority with powers which will focus and canalise the steadily increasing view of the community as a whole, that this small island, with great natural gifts of beauty, has been almost literally "mucked about" with in the past to an extent which was not fully justified even by the enormous industrial development, which has taken place. The work done by the river boards has for all that been very successful. Many of the water authorities have done extraordinarily good work. It is not always realised that the river on which this House stands, flowing through a most densely populated part of the country and in an increasingly industrialised area, is the main source of drinking water for a great section of this nation, and that by no means the least healthy or least virile section. I say that, coming from a far distant country which is not always wont to pay these tributes to the southern parts of the island.
The work which has been done shows that better work can be done. We believe that a great deal more cleaning up could readily be accomplished. There was a sort of wantonness of destruction that came over the people in the 19th century, in which the most beautiful things were destroyed with a feeling that anything that was beautiful must be to that extent sinful. They had the proverb, "Where there's muck there's money," and those


who pleaded amenity were apt to be regarded as "cissy" and failing in the full sense of the necessities of industry. Both industry and the rest of the community have changed that view a great deal. We may get back again to the greater care which was taken of these matters in earlier years.
There is a very long history of the careful care that has been taken of water and of water sources, even here. We are here in Thorney Island, or just adjacent to it. There is a block of flats up by the Albert Memorial called "Thorney Court" to this day. It is so-called because, before the days of the Norman Conquest, under Edward the Confessor, a piped supply of water was laid on from there to here. Still the stone stands in the Park, showing where that piped water supply originated from. It ran from the days of Edward the Confessor until about 1850 or 1860, so great was the skill that our early ancestors had and so extensive were the steps that they took to secure supplies of clean and adequate water. It was not always that the Thames was a good source of drinking water. There are records of the House showing that the windows had to be closed from time to time because of the noisome effluvium arising from the Thames. For that change, both the Metropolitan Water Board and the Thames Conservancy Board are owed the very greatest debt of gratitude.
None of us wishes to delay the House at this time, all the more because this is the beginning and not the end of our task. When we pass this Bill, we pass it to bodies whose trouble and responsibility it will be to determine these very difficult questions of the pull between one industry and another, or between industry and amenity, or even between industry and agriculture. These problems can only be determined with the greatest of good will on both sides, and they will not be solved in an afternoon. They will require long and careful working out. I hope that when that working out is in progress the bias will always be given towards the purity of rivers. The task of keeping the rivers clean from contamination is always more difficult than the attitude, "Let it go. What harm can a little more pollution do to such and such a stream?" Even the most polluted streams respond in the most surprising way to treatment and can,

at the end of the day be things of beauty in a relatively short time, if the co-operation of all concerned can be secured.
The watchword for the administration of this Measure must be the one which we have tried to make our own during the passage of the Bill, "Co-operation" and as far as possible "understanding of the other fellow's point of view." A rash attack might easily lead to a boomerang effect and a kickback which would put back the cause of purification of the rivers rather than forward it. I hope that our hopes will be fulfilled and our fears not realised, and that a reasonable degree of release of the constructive resources of this island, where required by the Minister for purification of the rivers, will be looked on with a favourable eye by the Minister's colleagues in the Cabinet, and I trust that he will be able to secure a rapid extension of the process of purification, which has been in progress, in spite of difficulties and, which we hope, will now go on at an increasing rate.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: As one who supported the Second Reading of the Bill I would endorse what the two previous speakers have said. I would also congratulate my right hon. Friend on the happy outcome of his efforts, largely due to the attitude which he and his Parliamentary Secretary adopted. They showed a most unusual responsiveness to the general feeling of hon. Members, even their own supporters. That is a valuable asset in a Government spokesman. They were extremely wise to retain in the Bill the common law rights to which many of us in all parts of the House attach a great deal of importance.
Some of us would have liked the Bill to be a little stronger here and there, but nevertheless it is a remarkably good Bill and the House can be proud of it. I have no doubt that future generations will be grateful not only to the Minister of Local Government and Planning and his Parliamentary Secretary, but to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan).

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Redmayne: On the Second Reading of the Bill I had the impertinence to hope that our discussions would not develop into the age-old


struggle "trade versus trout." On the whole, we have kept off that argument. On the Report stage we tended to become a little heated about vested interests. When the Minister has considered the revised Amendments I hope he will steel his heart to some extent, so that the original intentions of the Bill may be retained.
Skating thinly on the edge of order I hope that last thoughts may be directed to the question of a survey. I would call the Minister's attention to the detailed remarks which were made by his predecessor on the Second Reading, on the subject of that survey. I see the Parliamentary Secretary nodding his head. Columns 808 and 809 of HANSARD are most informative, but this does not appear in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) and I have put down an Amendment to Clause 16 of the Finance Bill to provide that expenditure on the installation and improvement of plant and equipment for anti-pollution purposes should be exempted from the cancellation of initial allowances. I realise that I am again sailing close to the wind, but this may be in order. So much support has been promised if only the money were available that I hope that when the time comes the right hon. Gentleman and also the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and the others who have shown themselves so well disposed towards anti-pollution will support our Amendment.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Colegate: I want to join in the general chorus of tributes to the pleasantness that we have had in Committee and in the House during the passage of a Bill which should have substantial results if it is adequately administered. I am, however, sorry that, owing apparently to a slight misunderstanding, the Minister has not been able to implement an extremely firm undertaking which he gave me to put down an Amendment to ensure that an annual report should be made to the House. There is no doubt that this can easily be dealt with. No doubt in another place the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that the Amendment which he promised me will be inserted in the Bill. My Amendment was wholeheartedly accepted by everybody in the Committee and I am

sure it is only due to some slight misunderstanding that the Minister has not brought forward the Amendment which he promised.
When that Amendment is made I feel that we shall have a Bill which will do what we have been trying to do for generations. We shall be able to check year by year what progress, if any, is being made in clearing up the pollution of our rivers. That has never been possible before. All sorts of powers have existed, but they have never been focused so that we could see if progress was being made. I believe that the Bill will do that, and that it will, therefore, be one of the greatest additions to the amenities of our country that we have seen for a generation.

6.23 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: At this early hour and on a summer evening a long Third Reading speech would be a mistake. I merely want to add my contribution to what has been said in appreciation of the co-operation of hon. Members of all parties and particularly that of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. When the Bill was first introduced I was depressed. Some of us had worked so long and had hoped for so much after the passing of the River Boards Bill that this Bill, in its first draft, was definitely disappointing. Very much has since happened, but we must confess that we have to some extent cast our burden on another place. I regret that little more has been done about estuaries. Our Scottish friends have been a little more ambitious about that, but it is too late for us now.
I hope that the Bill will soon be on the Statute Book. Then will come the testing time. It is so important that this Bill should not be like the 1876 Act. It depends on a real effort being made by all concerned—the river boards, the local authorities, industry and the Ministries—to make it work, and on the watch-dogs, who played a considerable part in bringing in the Bill in the first place, not going to sleep until they are able to drink from every river in the country.

6.25 p.m.

Dr. Stross: To pile compliment on compliment is like piling Pelion on Ossa so far as the Bill is concerned, but all of us have been made very happy at the reception that it has had and the courtesy that we have had from the Government


Bench. The local authorities had certain reservations at first but I am sure that they now feel that there is no danger, having heard the explanations which have been given by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on the points about which they were concerned.
Not only does the Bill deserve a Third Reading, but we are happy to give it because we know that the Bill gives us an instrument by means of which the life and the health of the country will be improved. No human being would ever dream of polluting his veins and his arteries with effluents from other less delectable parts of the body, but that is what we have tended to do with our rivers and streams throughout Europe, and that is what we now wish to prevent for all time in the case of our rivers. Streams full of life are streams which are healthy. Such streams are an inspiration to the human beings who live near them and approach them. We are concerned not only with the fish but also with the human beings and the way that we are attracted to water.
Water, when it is clean and pure, gives us psychologically some memory, going back very far. Perhaps it is a pre-uterine memory, a memory from before the time we came to birth itself. That constitutes its fascination. If our streams are polluted and fouled, it is an assault upon and an insult to our souls. We are glad to be able to place a term upon pollution in our rivers.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: The Minister has had his quota of bouquets, and he has deserved them because he has been very accommodating. I suppose that we can now consider that the Bill is approaching its final form as the statutory instrument of the river boards, and before it passes to another place it is worth considering just how effective it will be to the boards in practice.
As I said during the Report stage, we are glad that the common law right still remains. That is a help; but let us just see how effective the Bill will be to the boards. The Bill will not be really effective as an instrument for them until they have set up their bylaws and standards; and that is the crux of the Bill. Normally, we hope, these will be established and

that it will be only an exceptional case where after seven years the board may proceed without the Minister's permission; but it will be very difficult for the boards to set up these standards and bylaws, and I believe that we have saddled them with a formidable task.
The establishment of standards and bylaws for rivers was the recommendation of the Hobday Committee. The alternative procedure would be to give river boards the same sort of powers as have the Thames and Lee Conservancies, which have local Acts that give them unrestricted powers to proceed against any effluent they consider to be polluting their rivers, and that means that whoever is discharging effluent into the river is at risk at all times, and that it is up to the river board to decide what they consider to be polluting.
It was evidently considered that on balance that was too great a power to put into the hands of all river boards, varying as they will do in their strength and conditions from one part of the country to another. So finally the idea in this Bill was evolved of empowering a river board to establish its own individual standards and bylaws, which are expected to suit the particular conditions of its river and the local conditions in which people live. I recognise immediately that it gives a desirable flexibility, and as those bylaws are subject to the confirmation of the Minister, that should ensure that they will be reasonable. On the other hand, however, it gives the river boards this formidable task of setting up their bylaws and standards.
I want for a few minutes to try to think how a river board will proceed when it gets into action. Nearly all the 29 river boards are formed now. I imagine that they are assembling a staff of expert engineers to carry out the work, and that they are beginning to deal with their rivers. Although the Bill does not say so, they must undoubtedly begin by making a survey. In that survey they must discover the high and low flow of their river. They must discover the rate of flow, they must discover the volume of it at various points, they must discover the number of effluents discharging into it and the nature of those effluents. That will all take some time.
They will then be in a position to consider the setting up of standards. It will


be fairly easy for them if they have a clean river, but if we consider the position of the river board confronted with a fairly heavily polluted river, we shall be dealing with the crux of what this Bill sets out to do. How will they proceed? They will probably have to proceed by working down from the head of the river to the lowest point where a reasonably high standard can be maintained and establish a standard for that stretch of the river to start with, with the intention of progressively working down the river as far as they can practically set up reasonable standards.
What standards are they likely to try to set up? This is very germane because, when they come to set up these by-laws and standards, they will have to go to a public enquiry and will have to come to the Minister to ask for his confirmation. The first one they will undoubtedly try to set up is a biological oxygen demand standard, the standard set up by the Royal Commission. Nobody has got much further than that today. They will also set up a standard for toxicity to fish, for we shall hope there are still fish in the river. They will also probably set up a standard for temperature of effluent. They will also probably define what solids they consider polluting, such as litter and so on.
The Royal Commission laid down that a biological oxygen demand of two parts in 100,000 could be considered to be a clean effluent, provided it was discharging into a river where the volume of the effluent was not more than one-eighth of the volume of the flow of the river. That, of course, should not be taken as an absolute standard because, if the river is a fast flowing, shallow one, perhaps with weirs in it, one could have a biological oxygen demand quite a bit higher and still have fish living healthily and happily in it.
Undoubtedly some river boards will be prepared to accept a higher biological oxygen demand where the flow or nature of their river is such that it is all right, but I would utter this note of caution. On no account must the fact that a river might have special conditions which make a higher biological oxygen demand acceptable be quoted as a precedent for accepting a higher biological oxygen demand where the river is sluggish and has no such aeration. That undoubtedly will

be the first standard the boards will consider.
Toxicity to fish will have to be determined empirically by seeing whether the effluent destroys them. We are up against a real difficulty on the establishment of standards, and do not let us pretend for a minute that we have given these river boards an easy task. The chemical effluents of factories nowadays vary in all kinds of ways, and constantly new factors are appearing. Some chemical which has not been met before is discharged into the river, and it will not perhaps be defined by the biological oxygen demand test but will, on the other hand, kill fish.
So the river boards must always be vigilant to find out just what sort of effluent may be discharged. On Second Reading I quoted the already famous case of the radio-active effluent from the Harwell works. That was a new factor which nobody had met previously but which, if discharged into the river, might well have endangered the health and the life of all the people who live in London and drink the Thames water. A way was found of purifying even that one.
I am quite sure that the river boards must watch temperature carefully, particularly in regard to the big new electricity generating stations. There is a real problem there because, from the amenity point of view, there is the alternative of two or three of these huge cooling towers, and one must balance amenity on the one hand with destroying the fish life of the river on the other. That is a problem for the right hon. Gentleman as well as for local government. Finally, there is the question of solids, which should not present any great difficulty.
We should be unrealistic if we did not appreciate that when the river boards have decided what by-laws and standards they wish to propose, they will not probably meet a certain amount of local opposition. At the local enquiry provided for by the Bill, the dischargers of the effluents will undoubtedly be represented there to say that they consider it is impossible for them to improve the condition of their effluents. On the other hand, the amenity and the angling interests will be there to say that they consider that the condition of the river should be improved.
We saw on Thursday last the weighty arguments which could be produced, both by local authorities and by industry, to show how difficult it is to improve the condition of effluents. I noticed on one occasion particularly that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be just a little sensitive to this pressure and felt somewhat apprehensive as to what might happen when river boards are making their propositions. I feel we should sound that note of caution.
It is fundamental that the standards which river boards propose should be reasonable, and that the Boards should behave in a reasonable way. We are a heavily populated industrial country. We must discharge effluents into the rivers if we are to live and to work. Of course, standards must be reasonable but, on the other hand, if they are not made fairly strong they will not be effective. If no bad effluent is ever to be at risk when it is discharged into the river, we might just as well not put this Bill on the Statute Book.
It was for that reason I felt it was worth developing the point of the task we have set the river boards and the great extent to which the effectiveness of the Bill will depend on the right hon. Gentleman and his successors when river boards make their propositions of bylaws and standards. After the course of the Bill through the House, I am sure the Minister apprehends the problems of the river boards and will see that the bylaws and standards they set up are strong enough to be effective.
I, personally, shall not measure the success of the operations of the river boards by the number of prosecutions they bring in the courts, for I know from experience that the successful administration of the river and the prevention of pollution is in practice obtained only by patient, continuous and considerate administrative work by the purification officers of the river boards concerned; and that is what we really want to see. If we can give them the confidence of having an effective statutory weapon behind them, which they will have only when they have set up their standards and their bylaws, then I believe that they will be capable of carrying out the work that we hope to see them do. With those comments, I give my

good wishes to the Bill and to the river boards when they come to put its provisions into effect.

6.41 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I heartily endorse every word which my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) has just said. In particular, I emphasise his closing remarks about the ways in which the river boards can go about their work, either in trying to get as many prosecutions as possible or, alternatively, trying to get as much agreement as possible. Painstaking compromise certainly may sometimes be necessary. To my mind, the most important subsection in the Bill is Clause 5 (6), where it is provided that in making bylaws the river boards are under an obligation to let all the interested parties know that they are proposing to make bylaws for a particular stretch of a stream.
Throughout the Committee stage of the Bill, the Minister quite rightly resisted the temptations—I am guilty, perhaps, of putting one to him myself—to make exclusions for certain types of possible offenders. He may, however, find that he will have to modify slightly some of his refusals, but I think he has been right in resisting in general the idea of making exclusions, because as soon as a loophole is made it usually becomes a rather bigger loophole than was intended. Nevertheless, we are all aware that the Bill is somewhat tentative and that we have not really made up our minds how it will work out.
In the consultations which I hope the river boards will have as a result of Clause 5 (6), there is a body of people, whose interests I have throughout tried to call to the minds of hon. Members, namely, the internal drainage boards, who will not, I hope, be forgotten. They have quite rightly said that they do not want to have anything to do with anti-pollution work. Their main object is to get the water away from the land and out to the main river. If they were suddenly to be made responsible for anti-pollution work also, that would probably be beyond their capacity, apart from the fact that we might be led back rather to the same state of affairs as existed in days gone by, when too many authorities were responsible for anti-pollution work.
As the Bill is drafted, however, there is still some uncertainty about the exact


position of these drainage boards. Since the acceptance of the Amendment this afternoon in Clause 10—in page 11, line 28, at end, insert "land or."—there is the possibility—I do not say it is a likelihood—of several ditches which are being polluted by land pollution converging into a slightly larger drain under the administration of an internal drainage board and of the ditch itself being so immaterial from the fisheries point of view and from a pollution viewpoint that it is not worth the river board's bothering about it; yet when these ditches come together into a drain which is the responsibility of the drainage board, the pollution may get rather greater, and by the time the stream enters the main river, the river board may very rightly decide that pollution to a considerable degree is taking place.
We have had many assurances from the Minister during the proceedings on the Bill that on no account would the internal drainage boards be held responsible if that were so, and that it is not their business to prevent pollution. As the Bill is drafted, however, it is perfectly possible to make them responsible if anybody wishes to do so, for Clause 2 (1) says that anybody commits an offence who
knowingly permits to enter a stream any solid matter.…
It is conceivable—I do not say it is likely—that a river board may find itself in a position where it has been unable to get at the individuals who are really the cause of all the trouble, and they may say, "Let us go a little further down and see where we can fasten some responsibility." I want to make quite sure that that responsibility is never placed upon internal drainage boards. To place the responsibility upon them would be grossly unfair and certainly would run contrary to the assurances which the Minister gave, and for which I am grateful, throughout the Committee stage.
Similarly, there is the matter of the internal drainage board, carrying out its ordinary work with its draglines, or whatever it may be, perhaps having to alter the watercourse or channel for which it is responsible. Although the Minister has given very categorical assurances that the internal drainage board would not be interfered with in carrying out its proper job, I still believe that, as the Bill is drafted, if anybody were sufficiently evilly disposed towards the internal drainage board, it could be charged with an offence.
I have tried to protect the interests of the internal drainage boards throughout the proceedings on the Bill, but I realise that the main object of the Bill is to make rivers fit for fish to live in. I am delighted to see that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is now present for the Third Reading of the Bill, because some of us were of opinion that he might be a better person to administer the Bill. I hope that he will never hesitate to take an interest in the anti-pollution work of the river boards.
I think that everyone, both in Committee and in the House today, is very well disposed towards the river boards and does not want to make their job any more difficult, but there is one feature of the work they will have to do under the Bill which conflicts to some extent with some of the work which they must carry out in the ordinary course of events. Most people say that when work is being done on a river, the correct place at which to start is the estuary, and then to work upstream, so far as work in the channel is concerned, certainly upwards from the point where the river ceases to be tidal.
There are some rivers where it is a pure waste of money and time to dredge the estuaries, because they silt up again immediately afterwards. The opinion is widely held, however, that the way to improve the channel of the river—I am not talking of the condition of the water—is to work upstream from the estuary or tidal end. So far as the Bill is concerned, the starting point would be at the headwater, working downwards gradually and finding more and more offenders as progress is made downstream.
When my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) was speaking, I could not help being reminded of a quotation by Mr. Arthur Bryant from "Punch" of 1840. I trust I am in good company in quoting from Mr. Arthur Bryant on this occasion, having been set an example from the other side of the House quite recently. Mr. Bryant quoted on this occasion a little poem:
Filthy river, filthy river
Full from London to the Nore.
What art thou but one vast gutter.
One tremendous common shore?
That described the Thames in about 1840, but I think the Thames Conservancy and the Port of London


Authority have done great work since then.
We know that many streams are in a deplorable state today. Fortunately, I represent a constituency where the rivers are comparatively pure and I do not place the entire credit for that fact upon the existing authorities, but rather on the fact that we have not many great cities on our rivers, either the Great Ouse or the River Nene. But Peterborough is very close and can do a great deal of harm and we might have more trouble from Bedford than we have. It is a matter for perpetual vigilance, and even the best of rivers can be easily made the worst of rivers by pollution.
I believe that in future success in preventing good rivers from becoming bad and improving rivers which are now bad will depend first on the frame of mind in which river boards go about their tasks. Here, again, I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford said; persuasion is probably a better method than taking everyone to court at the first opportunity. But it will depend on other things as well. It will depend not only on the goodwill of the river boards and local authorities, but of everyone—the anglers as well. The Fens is an area to which many come from the big cities at the week-end to do a little coarse fishing. I think they enjoy it, even though they obstruct the roads with their cars and motor chars-à-bancs. We want them to continue coming and we welcome them. Also we have local anglers who are interested in their river.
Finally, the Fens depend on good land drainage, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman, when talking to the river boards about this matter, to do everything he can to persuade them—most of them are, I think, ready to do it straight away—to bring the internal drainage boards into this as much as they can, because they are interested, even though under the Bill they have no responsibility for anti-pollution work. The right hon. Gentleman will find them co-operative if they are brought in, and I hope he will not cause a possible problem, which might arise under this Bill unless he does the right thing now, by ignoring them altogether. They must be thought of; they are essential to British agriculture and they are essential to life in the Fens and,

I believe, other parts of the country which are as interested as anyone in the purity of our rivers. I hope they will be preserved in order to continue their very vital work.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. John Morrison: As other hon. Members have said, I am sure no one wants a long speech on this beautiful evening, an evening which hon. Members opposite, and you, Mr. Speaker, will appreciate is 4th June, a date which is connected irreparably with a certain section of the River Thames mentioned in an earlier part of this Bill. I hope this Bill will help not only the bottom sections of the River Thames, but that area as well.
I wish to add my thanks to the Minister for the helpful attitude he adopted throughout the discussions on the Bill and I hope the Bill will prove of lasting benefit, not only to the amenities—fishing, bathing and public health as a whole—but also marry in with the needs of industry and local government which are of vital importance. I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries found time to look in for the concluding stages of the Bill and I hope the Bill will be a fitting tribute to the name of one who has been mentioned a great deal during the discussions and whose works have been quoted a great deal, the late Mr. Turing, who, on behalf of the British Field Sports Society, did a great work in writing particulars and going into great detail in regard to the pollution of many rivers.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Renton: I must confess that at first I was very sceptical when I saw the Bill. I was not on the Committee, but, having seen it come back from the Committee, I also now confess that I am very hopeful about it. It provides machinery for what might be a very useful experiment but the success of the experiment will depend to a great extent on the part which the Minister and his successors play. That may sound surprising at first, but it depends on the Minister whether there are sufficient numbers of members of river boards interested in the problems of this Bill.
Speaking of the proposed River Great Ouse River Board, I would point out that the local authority representatives upon it will not, for the most part, be interested


in angling. As members of the local authority they are concerned mainly about the drainage of the very large drainage areas they represent. County councillors are not elected to local authorities because they happen to be anglers, and if the Minister wishes to ensure that angling interests are properly represented on river boards, it is up to him to see to it—and I give him that suggestion and warning.
The Minister has a further important task under the Bill which arises from the conflict of two duties which he will have. The first is his general duty of administration under the Bill and the second is the duty which he has to grant financial aid for sewerage schemes. To exemplify the difficulty which arises, or will arise, in the fulfilment of those two duties, I mention the case of the River Great Ouse, which does not suffer greatly from industrial contamination but considerably from sewage contamination, including contamination from the four small towns of my constituency past which the Great Ouse flows. None of those four towns at the moment has an even reasonably up-to-date sewerage scheme. Three of them will soon have such a scheme, but one will not because it cannot afford the cost.
I have to meet the Parliamentary Secretary before long to discuss this matter and I do not want to go into details now, but unless the local authority puts on a rate of 5s. 6d. in the pound—which is an enormous rate for a small community—there is no hope of its getting a sewerage scheme now or for years to come. If the Minister wishes to see the Bill working successfully, he must use, as wisely as he can, some of the money the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow his Department to spend and he must use some in furthering sewerage schemes, especially for the smaller towns which cannot stand on their own feet in this matter.
It seems to me that first and last the Minister is to be the dictator of the success or failure of this Bill. Upon his prudence will depend whether the Bill becomes the reality we all hope it will or remain a dream on the Statute Book.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Hargreaves: I wish to give a welcome to this Bill, perhaps qualified until I have seen what emanates

from another place. I wish to emphasise that it is an instrument which follows from the River Boards Act, 1948, and that the river boards are not starting work anew in surveying, in setting standards and in dealing with industrial and other pollution. They have at their disposal the expert advice and the result of the long-standing work of the catchment boards.
I wish to invite the river boards to use this Bill as an opportunity, not in the sense that has been suggested this afternoon—as a means of leaning upon the Ministry of Local Government and Planning or the Ministry of Agriculture—but to follow immediately on the work which the catchment boards have done; to free themselves with the least possible delay from the centralised administration of this Bill; and to set their standards and their bylaws as soon as practicable. I do not regard the Bill as a means for them to look to the central Government in order to carry out the work which this Bill gives to them, and to lean upon the Minister for the length of time which is embodied in the Bill—seven years. I regard that as much too long because, as I have indicated, a great deal of work has already been done in connection with the rivers of this country.
This Bill is an instrument for the halting of the pollution that is going on, of setting a limit to it and of bettering the condition of the rivers at time goes on. That work can begin immediately. I do not regard that task as the responsibility and work of the Minister of Local Government and Planning or of the Minister of Agriculture, but as the job upon which the river boards can start immediately. It is their task, in my view, to start from the point at which pollution is least and work downwards to the estuaries of the various rivers, past the towns and cities which are the source of industrial and other pollution, setting their standard at the point at which pollution is least.
The work of deepening and dredging channels is not always of great help in dealing with the question of pollution. One finds a lovely stream, bright, fast and sparkling in its high reaches, and then, as it flows towards the estuary, the catchment board have the idea of deepening the channel. The result is to


take the life and vitality and aeration out of the river, making it less lively and less able to deal with pollution. As aeration is taken out of the water the oxygen has less chance of attacking pollution.
I turn to the question of temperature. It is not always the case, in respect of electricity generating stations that there is only the alternative of cooling towers. Water can be circulated from the river throughout the generating system. After that water has flowed through the station, is it not possible, as has been done in some areas, to emit that heated circulation water from the outfall of the generating station, returning it to the river from a height at which it will not only cool over blocks of stone while falling to the river but will acquire a liveliness and oxygenation in its fall to the river which will be helpful to the river in its onward flow. In the smaller generating stations at least that is a practicable and effective way of returning circulating water to the river without the need to build great cooling towers which are enormously costly.
In giving a welcome to the Bill, and in complimenting all those who have been concerned in the Committee stage with its form as it now appears, I wish to differ from the point of view which has found expression today that there is a need to depend on the work of the Ministry. This is an opportunity and an instrument for the river boards. I hope that they will use it effectively in the service of the people of the country as a whole.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

CINEMAS, BEBINGTON (SUNDAY OPENING)

7.7 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I beg to move,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Bebington, a copy of

which was laid before this House on 31st May, be approved.
The purpose of this Order is to empower the Borough of Bebington to allow Sunday cinemas. The procedure is as laid down in the Ninth Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1933, and in the Sunday Cinematograph Entertainment (Polls) Order, 1932. In accordance with the procedure laid down, a public meeting was held in Bebington which voted against Sunday opening. More than 100 electors demanded a poll, which was duly held on 14th April. There were 3,047 votes for Sunday opening and 2,101 against. Thus there was a majority of just under 1,000 in favour of Sunday opening. This reversed a decision taken in 1946. The Home Secretary is satisfied that the statutory requirements have been complied with and he is under a duty to lay this Order before Parliament.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Oakshott: As this Regulation affects my constituency, I wish to say a few words, particularly in view of the fact that, as the Under-Secretary of State has said, this reverses a previous decision. I am not concerned with the rights and wrongs of Sunday opening, but only to emphasise that the local authority has acted perfectly properly throughout. At a poll in 1946 the verdict was that the cinemas should not open on Sundays. On no less than five occasions between July, 1947, and November, 1949, the local authority refused to re-open the matter when requested to do so. It was only after a canvass by an interested section that they decided that there was such a change of opinion as would justify the holding of this poll.
In that canvass people were employed who were customarily employed by the local authority in elections, and they could not be said to have any bias. I am concerned only to emphasise, in view of things that have sometimes been said outside, that in this case there is no question but that the local authority acted absolutely properly and in full compliance with the statutory requirements placed upon them.

Question put, and agreed to.

ONE-WAY STREET, WESTMINSTER

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Crouch: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 18th May 1951, entitled the London Traffic (Prescribed Routes) (No. 11) Regulations, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 888), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st May, be annulled.
This Prayer differs from so many that we have in this House in that there is a principle involved, and I do not think the question of cutting across the politics of either side of the House arises at all. It is the duty of this House and of hon. Members to see that when Acts of Parliament have been passed that they are properly carried out. It is a part of our duty to see that the various channels through which the Acts are passed are at all times strictly complied with. We look upon the Police Force as the body most concerned with the carrying out of the various Acts of Parliament.
I will not dispute with the Minister of Transport the decision of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolitan area to make Cannon Row a one-way street. That decision was most probably taken after a great deal of consideration. What I object to is that before the prescribed day, which in this Order is named as 8th June, 1951, Cannon Row has been turned into a one-way street. To my knowledge that notice has been up for more than a week. I am led to believe that, as the result of the notice being put up there, and the speed with which it was put up, this spot has very probably been used as an extra parking place for Scotland Yard.
I was up that street this afternoon and I was alarmed at the number of vehicles parked there, and parked outside private premises where there was a large notice erected stating that no parking was allowed. I noticed last week, and again today, that vehicles are parked beyond the notice erected there saying that to parking is allowed in the street between the hours of 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. I cannot conceive that anyone other than members of the Police Force would be allowed to leave their vehicles parked in this manner during the day.
I am aware, and the Minister may say, that he has temporary powers to make it a one-way street. If he has those powers, I argue that if he has been using them to keep this a one-way street, a temporary notice should have been continued in use until 8th June. It may have been more convenient to erect the notice saying that it was a one-way street on the day on which it was erected; but the notice should have been screened by having a bag or something over it until the appropriate day. For some considerable time since I have been a Member of this House I have seen a temporary notice there and I feel that hon. Gentlemen have noticed it also. In fact, you, Sir, may have noticed it because it is not very far from the Speaker's House—this flashing beacon which has prevented people from going down there. This House, I consider, would be failing in its duty if we did not draw attention to a matter of this kind, which is a deliberate flouting of the law made by this House.
I hope that, as a result of bringing this matter before the House, that the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that in the future, when a decision is taken to make a street a one-way street or when the police are bringing in other orders which may be of assistance, they will not be put into effect until the stated day.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I beg to second the Motion.
The point at issue is indeed a very narrow one, as is the street to which these Regulations refer. We do not suggest that Cannon Row should not be a one-way street; it could hardly be anything else. It is, in fact, a very narrow street going down in a steep gradient, and it must have been difficult at any time for vehicles to pass each other in it.
One suspects, indeed, that this street was designed certainly long before the days of planning of any sort, and probably before the days of vehicles. One suspects that this is a relic of those days when the district between Westminster and the City of London consisted of a mass of alleys which were used by footpads, and which made the cry of "Who goes home?" a very practical suggestion. At any rate, Cannon Row is not now used by footpads. It appears to be used by the inmates of Scotland Yard. It is


rather an extraordinary thing that here in this street situate between Scotland Yard and the Houses of Parliament, something should be taking place which appears to be an encroachment on the powers of the Legislature by the Executive.
The notice to which my hon. Friend has referred has been there to my knowledge for a considerable time. It has not been covered and it is still there, because I had a look this morning. It is, I think, regrettable that something should be placed at the entrance to this street indicating that it is already a one-way street when paragraph 4 of these Regulations gives the date when they should come into operation as 8th June. It is, of course, stated in Section 10 (7) of the London Traffic Act, 1924, that:
Any regulation made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and, if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new regulation.
I submit that that subsection has nothing to do with the issue in this particular case, because the Regulations themselves, on the face of them, do not come into operation until 8th June.
It is for these reasons, and because this appears to be an encroachment by the Executive on the powers of the Legislature here within the very shadow of the House of Commons, that I second this Motion.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: So far as these Regulations are concerned, my objection to them is somewhat different to that of both my hon. Friends. I say at once that, I suppose, I am an interested party. Several times a week I have to call at premises which have a back entrance in Cannon Row. When I take my car there I frequently find that there is a long line of parked cars, and sometimes it is extremely difficult to find room to put my car there at all. Therefore, perhaps I have an interest in the matter. If so, I declare it at once.
I should like to disabuse my hon. Friend of one point he has in mind. I do

not think that it is always Scotland Yard that is to blame. There are a large number of commercial and business offices situated in buildings fronting or backing on to Cannon Row. It is mainly people who work in these buildings who use that street as a sort of unofficial car park, but I have no doubt that some police cars are left there too. I cannot really blame the police, because the space inside Scotland Yard itself is rather congested. As the police force becomes more and more motorised, obviously they need more room for their cars.
There is one point about the Regulations on which I have some complaint. Paragraph I says:
Every vehicle entering Cannon Row in the City of Westminster shall, between the point of its entry therein and the point of its departure therefrom, proceed from north to south.
I should like to ask a question about this. Suppose I come into Cannon Row in my car approaching from the only entrance which is available, that is to say from Whitehall. When I get down to the bottom of the little slope, and before I turn right, there are buildings which completely obstruct my view. I cannot see, until I am some yards along Cannon Row, whether there is space for me to park my car. If there is not, and I then back my car to get out of Cannon Row by the way I came in, am I committing an offence under this paragraph? My car will be proceeding from south to north, albeit in a reverse direction. I suppose that technically this is an offence.
I only mention what may seem to be a fanciful point so that I can suggest that the wording of this sort of provision might be changed in future Regulations to make it clear that every vehicle shall approach a certain road which is intended to be a one-way street from a certain point or by a certain entrance. If it were said:
every vehicle shall enter Cannon Row from the south end thereof,
then I do not think there would be the slightest doubt that a car which happened to back would not be automatically committing an offence if the driver was compelled to reverse because of some obstruction.
That is the small point I had in mind. I felt that in view of the fact that Cannon Row is used by a large number of lorries which unload goods into warehouses and other buildings situate there, this position


might often arise. A car might go into Cannon Row and the driver find that a lorry completely blocks the path. Unless the driver is to settle down for a long wait, he has to back out because there is no way of getting round. I suggest that possibly a provision similar to that which I have suggested might be included in future orders.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The hon. Member suggests that he might want to park his car in Cannon Row. The Regulation says:
Every vehicle entering Cannon Row…shall proceed from north to south.
Surely, it would be inconsistent with proceeding from north to south to stop in Cannon Row?

Mr. Hay: That shows how difficult these Regulations can be. The hon. Gentleman has raised a very good point. I suggest that the whole of those Regulations might be withdrawn so that the Minister can reconsider the wording and perhaps introduce a further regulation setting out the position more clearly.

7.24 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): The various points which have been mentioned emphasise the difficulty of the Minister of Transport in his efforts to facilitate the movement of traffic in London. I am afraid that in many instances if I had to wait until I had solved all the language difficulties and legal possibilities arising from these Regulations nothing would be done. When we talk in these Regulations of the movement of vehicles along a route, that does not cover the question of whether every vehicle must be perpetually on the move.
One of my difficulties in London is that these bottlenecks tend to bring traffic to a standstill. It is my major preoccupation to avoid that. I appreciate the difficulty of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). He is right on one point. I do not think that the difficulty in Cannon Row is caused mainly by the parking of police cars. There are a large number of important businesses in Parliament Street and Cannon Row, which is only a very narrow thoroughfare—

Sir Herbert Williams: On which side of Parliament Street are the important businesses?

Mr. Barnes: Both—one commercial and one political. I can hardly underestimate the importance of the political side of Parliament Street, particularly at the moment when hon. Members are discussing the issue that the laws which emanate from the political side of Parliament Street should be observed. Cannon Row, is a very narrow thoroughfare, as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) admitted. I think it is about 14 feet wide. While commercial vans are delivering goods there one can appreciate that there is difficulty, and I think that that justifies those one-way Regulations.
I was particularly pleased that those Members who raised this question did not object to the purpose of the regulations. They insist that the procedure should be correctly and accurately carried out. This is not a matter of principle. Questions of procedure are involved. I should be the first to admit that the procedure laid down should be correctly carried out. In this case the procedure that the notice authorising the one-way street should not be observable until the Regulations were enforced has not been carried out. That is a point of omission I acknowledge and for which I express my regret.
I give an undertaking to see that steps are taken in future to ensure that these notices are not, exhibited to the public until the date of the Regulations. Directly this matter was brought to my notice I called the attention of the City of Westminster to this omission. I should like to state that the notice has been covered up and that the position will be in order until the appropriate date. Now that the matter has been ventilated and the fact has been emphasised that Departments should observe in every detail the procedure that Parliament lays down, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Crouch: I very much appreciate the interest the right hon. Gentleman has taken in this notice since Questions this afternoon, because that was the time of my last visit to Cannon Row and the notice was still exposed. I hope that as a result of this question being brought before the House the Government will ensure that the officers of the law who carry out the orders of this House abide by those orders.
I have no interest in any of the business firms occupying premises in Cannon Row. However, I hope that some steps will be taken to ease the difficulties of these firms which have notices on their walls that clearly state, "No Parking," but find that cars are parked outside their premises with the doors locked. This causes great difficulty when drivers of lorries wish to deliver goods. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THEATRES AND CINEMAS (SMOKING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Bowden.]

7.30 p.m.

Miss Burton: Before I came into the Chamber somebody said to me, "You won't half be unpopular, stopping smoking in cinemas." I should like to remove that illusion at once. In the first place, I have not power to stop smoking in cinemas; secondly, if I had I should not wish to use it. I want tonight to raise this matter for discussion in the House and in the country. That is one of the purposes for which we are here. Obviously I should not be in order in raising any matter requiring legislation, but I raise it in this form so that responsibility may be attached to one of the responsible Ministers.
Tonight I want to raise the question of the fire risk and discomfort caused by smoking in theatres and cinemas. I do so with a certain amount of personal trepidation because I have only just lived down the memory of a subject I raised on the same point about a year ago. This year is Festival year, and as an introduction to this subject I should like to commend the Government for having made possible for the people of this country the Festival of Britain, which has brought a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction, not only to us but to our friends overseas.
Those of our friends from overseas who come to this city of ours and visit our cinemas and theatres will, to their great surprise, find themselves liable not only to be set on fire but to be asphyxiated first. I have said "to their great surprise,"

because this is the only civilised country in the world, apart from Italy, where smoking is the rule in cinemas and theatres. This risk of fire from smoking—

Mr. Speaker: I am bound to ask whether there is any Government responsibility for smoking in cinemas.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): Perhaps I might help you, Mr. Speaker, on this point. Because of fire risk there is Government responsibility attaching to the Home Office.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot see that there is any Government responsibility for whether or not it is objectionable and uncomfortable. The fire risk may be another matter.

Miss Burton: I am sorry if I did not make that clear. I was endeavouring to make it clear that I was raising this as a matter of fire risk. The other question is entirely secondary, although perhaps if I do not digress unduly I might be permitted to use it as a means of illustration. I wish to direct my remarks throughout to the fire risk, for which I understand there is at law a certain amount of responsibility in the Home Office.
The fire risk from this cause is run in all London cinemas and in 29 out of 44 West End theatres. During a visit to the United States of America in 1948, I found that risk to be non-existent in their theatres and existent in only certain parts of their cinemas. In most cases it was the upstairs part of the cinema where the risk was run. Looking at the Continent of Europe by way of further illustration we find that there is no risk of fire from this cause in Sweden, Germany or France. In Denmark the rule, and therefore the risk, varies from one cinema to another, but is incurred only in certain theatres which offer light entertainment.
Until 1915, in this country this risk of fire was not run at any theatres under the Lord Chamberlain's direction because smoking was barred in all of them. As a matter of historical interest, I might perhaps point out that in 1915 the Comedy Theatre in London asked for a change in this law, because they argued that troops home on leave liked to smoke at their shows and should be allowed to do so.
I think we all know that the very large proportion of fires in cinemas in this


country can be traced to smoking. Indeed, I am informed by local authorities that smoking is the major cause of fires anywhere in the country. In cinemas any such fire would obviously be discovered by the nightwatchman when the patrons had gone home. Here I should like to pay tribute to our fire services, whose high efficiency prevents these fires from being more serious than they are. I have made some inquiries, and I am informed that the majority of these fires in cinemas are small, but we none of us know when a small fire may become a large one. I imagine, therefore, that the Home Office would welcome any discussion in the country which might tend to lessen the fire risk in places of amusement.
Local licensees of our theatres and cinemas could do a great deal to help in this respect, because the local licensee of a theatre or cinema really decides whether or not he will run this risk of fire by allowing his patrons to smoke in his theatre or cinema. Theoretically, of course, the local authority has that power, because it could attach such conditions to the granting of a licence. In reality this is very rarely done, and we therefore come back to the licensee and the Home Office having responsibility for forbidding smoking in any recognised danger spots in cinemas, but not in theatres.
I wonder whether by discussion in this House we could not lessen the fire risk and, as a subsidiary point, remove much discomfort by having the matter discussed in public by the Home Office, local authorities, the licensees and the general public? I do not say all this from the standpoint of a spoil-sport. It is possible to be a smoker or a non-smoker, and therefore contribute or not contribute to this fire risk, without being called a crank—and I would not want to be labelled a crank on this or any other issue. I ask whether this is really demanding a great deal of people.
What would we have to do to lessen this fire risk in places of entertainment? It would mean doing without a smoke between the intervals in theatres. That is the maximum it would mean in the theatres. Quite apart from the fire risk, such consideration in a theatre or music-hall would be an act of courtesy to the performers. In London theatres, many of which are very old and small, apart

from lessening the fire risk it would mean that it would be possible to see the stage from all parts of the house at all times of the evening. At present, as the evening goes on, it becomes impossible to see the stage through the thick blue haze in various parts of the house.
The other day I was given an interesting example of a cinema near London called the Davis Theatre in Croydon. At this cinema, during this Festival year, concerts are being given. Now, when films are being shown there smoking is permitted, but when a concert is being given no smoking is permitted. The point I would make is that this must obviously be by public consent because there is nothing on the tickets issued for concerts at this cinema to say that there must be no smoking. Therefore, it is not a legal condition of entry, and must be by public consent. It is very interesting that public opinion there feels that this risk should not be run during a concert, but that it is quite right to run the risk during the showing of films.
I want to take this example a step further, because in this country as everywhere else, there are a great many places where smokers can smoke to their heart's content and can run the risk of fire. But in this country, we always consider ourselves to be tolerant of minorities. I know that for some reason or other the non-smoking minority is regarded as a nuisance and as one not to be treated with a great deal of toleration, though normally, as I say, we regard minorities as groups of people to be tolerated.
Would it not be a real step forward if the people of this country would agree to lessen the risk of fire in places of entertainment by forgoing a smoke for, at the most, three hours? I know we all hope that the length of our cinema programmes will come down considerably from three hours, but I think that three hours is the maximum time today, and that is the most I am suggesting we might consider doing. Were we to forgo smoking on the occasions that we go to the theatre, it would, I believe, not only lessen the fire risk but would be an act of courtesy to the performers. It would be a real help to many people who are genuinely affected by tobacco smoke in the theatre and cinema and whose night out, as a result, is really spoilt.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I must apologise to the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) for not being able to be present during the early part of her speech. She very courteously told me that she was going to raise this matter, but, as you know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there is an official dinner given by Mr. Speaker tonight, and, for what it is worth, we had to change our costume from the utility clothing of Parliamentary debate to more respectable clothing better suited for dining with Mr. Speaker.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It might still be utility.

Mr. Baxter: The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that it might still be utility. I accept the reprimand, but, in that case, I was severely overcharged.
I wish to support everything the hon. Lady has said, and, indeed, to go a little further. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give this matter more than just passing consideration. This is in no sense an attempt just to fill up a debate. I feel very strongly about it, because, as a dramatic critic, I have to go to the theatre very often. As far as I know, there is no other country in the world, on whichever side of the Iron Curtain it is situated, which permits smoking in the theatre, and I want to confine my remarks purely to the theatre.
In America, they carry matters in this respect to the extreme. One cannot even smoke in the foyer of an American theatre. If on a winter's night one wants a puff or two at a cigarette, one has to go practically into the street and take the chance of getting pneumonia. Only a race of people singularly insensitive could put up with this nuisance. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State sometimes goes to the theatre, and will therefore know that the draught is always from the right and left. That means that anyone smoking a cigar on the right of a person—probably a complete stranger—blows the smoke over the person sitting on his left. If the persons concerned are friends, then, of course, it is a different matter.
But, if I may say so with respect to the hon. Lady, women are the worst offenders. This is what happens—and please do not think I am being frivolous about this, because it is irritation carried to its highest degree.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I understand Mr. Speaker said that this aspect of the matter could not be discussed, the only subject under discussion being the danger of fire.

Mr. de Freitas: I hope I did not mislead Mr. Speaker. The fire risk, of course, is the most direct responsibility of the Government, but under the Theatre Act, 1843, there are certain conditions which the licensing authorities may impose. It is open to question whether or not they could consider discomfort as one of the factors. The licensing authorities might think it open to question.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is it the licensing authority or the local authority?

Mr. de Freitas: The local authority and the Lord Chamberlain.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We have no responsibility for the local authority.

Mr. Baxter: It seems to me that on the Adjournment, when we are not debating a Clause or Second Reading but are discussing smoking in theatres, the issue is whether or not this House shall adjourn. It seems to me that I am framing my remarks very closely to the subject. With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I do not think it possible to keep the debate as narrow as you have indicated.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We have certain Rules even on the Adjournment, and one of them is, of course, that there must be some Government responsibility for the subject discussed. If the Government have no responsibility for the comfort or discomfort of people in the theatre, which apparently is the responsibility of the local authority, then it seems to me that Mr. Speaker's Ruling was in accordance with the facts.

Mr. Baxter: I realise that, but in these days, when local authorities and the Government are becoming closer all the time, it is possible that the Under-Secretary of State might find some means of conveying the wisdom of my remarks to the local authorities. After all, this is a national issue. People come from abroad to our theatres and observe the strange habits of this island race. If you will allow me to proceed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in case it is possible for the information to be passed on to the proper authorities, I shall be obliged.
I was going to say that women are the worst offenders in this regard, and I want to give a description of a woman smoking in the theatre. It is of general interest, and I hope that from a national point of view I may be allowed to give it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is very difficult because Mr. Speaker gave a definite Ruling that he could not allow this aspect to be discussed. Therefore, I do not think it fair to ask me to allow it.

Mr. Baxter: I feel like somebody in the ring who has been ordered to his corner. As the hon. Lady has made this case, I was hoping that I should be allowed to develop it. After all, we cannot raise this matter very well on the Budget, even though the smoking of cigarettes is a matter of revenue, and therefore of interest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is also a matter of education, and even has to do with the Festival. It seems to me that it touches so many Ministries that I really might be allowed to make my case, provided I make it very briefly.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would still be out of order, because it would require legislation.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Could not the hon. Gentleman link his description of ladies smoking with the danger of fire?

Mr. Baxter: I was about to raise that very point. Therefore, I withdraw completely the more philosophic part of my argument. I want to point out why the possibility of fire is rendered more likely by a woman smoking in the theatre. As hon. Members know, a woman carries what is known as a bag. In this bag are many things which no man will ever understand. In the bag there is an article which becomes inflammable if lit, and therefore it becomes a threat to the safety of the theatre.

Mr. Shurmer: Matches?

Mr. Baxter: Not matches, but a lighter. So, at some moment when Hamlet is deciding whether to be or not to be and we concentrate upon that very important question—which affects the Government as they are in the same quandary—she decides to risk the life of

her fellow people in the theatre by smoking. She feels for her bag, lifts it up and eventually extracts a cigarette. Next she takes the cigarette and puts it in her mouth, she then takes the lighter. I do not know whether you are musical or not Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but in "Carmen" there is a piece of music called the "Habanera." She then starts to play it on the lighter—I should be out of order if I sang it, but it has a certain rhythm of the castanets—because no lighter lights on first acquaintance. She goes on playing it until she lights the cigarette, and then she starts putting the things back into her bag.
This threat to our safety goes on. The cigarette ash gets longer and longer, and one sits back wondering at what moment it will fall; but she flicks it with a motion of her hand and puts it in the ash tray. It is a threat to the safety of the audience, and it is a greater threat to decency and consideration for other people. We are anxious that people should work longer and not retire too soon. Actors find that this smoke is very hard on their throats. Many actors have had to retire earlier from the profession because of it, and therefore it is going against the Chancellor's policy.
Our kinsmen and cousins are coming from abroad to our country, and the theatre is a great show place to them. We show them this danger and this abominable lack of consideration and of taste. If it is possible for the Secretary of State, who is a man of great wisdom, and his Under-Secretary to arrange that this nuisance shall stop at once, thus restoring the dignity of the theatre and doing away with this menace to safety, the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South, will have done us proud and rendered a most useful service in raising this matter tonight.

7.53 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I am not sure that we have not had evidence tonight of a smoke-screen behind which has developed an attack on the Treasury. We have not had any figures, though we might surmise them, as to what would happen to the Treasury if this fire risk were not entertained, because that would mean no smoking for millions of people in the places where they do smoke.

Mr. Baxter: In this House the present Minister of Local Government and Planning brought in a tax to stop people smoking. He said the revenue did not interest him. Therefore, it is a form of Government policy.

Dr. Stross: I am grateful for the intervention. I must remind the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) that I heard the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, whom we all hope will soon be better than he is now, say that to stop people smoking or to make cigarettes cheaper would be grossly inflationary in time. I make no point of that against my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), to whom we are grateful for bringing up this subject which is controversial and to which it is well worth while giving thought. She said she did not want to be considered a spoil-sport on this or any other matter, and I am sure that nobody will think her so for raising these divergences of taste and custom between ourselves and other countries.
Yet we should not blame ourselves too much in this matter. Historically, the risk of fire was taken even in churches. The Protestant Dutch used their churchwardens in their churches 300 years ago. They gave up the habit, which today we would think objectionable. In the art gallery in Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent, we have a priceless plaque made by Toft, I think in 1660, showing a gentleman in his peruke and gown smoking a churchwarden. The caption is "Smoke your nose."
I think the hon. Lady wants us to stop smoking our noses in places where there is a fire risk. There is a great deal to be said for that, not so much in this country as in other parts of the world where the risk is greater. In Venice no one would be allowed to smoke in a theatre or cinema because they have very old buildings which cannot be replaced and which are not built on solid ground but on piles driven into old lagoons. I can understand objections there more easily than objections here, but if one comes to the question of aestheticism, we have no case at all.
You would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I spoke about this subject on health grounds or on grounds of discipline. It would be so good for us

to stop smoking once in a while. I think I should find it very objectionable to discipline myself, but I should welcome the rigour of applied discipline for the sake of my own health. So far as performance in the live theatre is concerned, there can be no possible excuse. The fact that we used to have the term "smoking concert" meant that we had much more sense then than we have now. The smoking concert was for men only. They had to care nothing for the performance or the performers because they were singing altogether ribald or jolly songs.
I should like to support the hon. Lady on the question of smoking in theatres. She is on a very good thing indeed here. Whether from the point of view of small fires, large fires, or no fires at all, it is well worth while the Home Office giving some thought to this matter and, having done so, if they make up their minds that in the theatre, at least, there should be no smoking at all, I think most of us would agree heartily with them.

7.57 p.m.

Viscountess Davidson: I should like to support every word the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), has said. I am not a smoker and because of that I should like to be tolerant of those who do like smoking. I must emphasise, first, the danger and the risk that exists from smoking in theatres. I do not think that has been exaggerated by the hon. Lady and those who support her. There is no doubt that it shows a great lack of courtesy, understanding and appreciation of the theatre. For all those reasons and many others, I am very glad to have the opportunity of supporting the hon. Lady.

7.59 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am beginning to be afraid of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), when she comes along and asks the Government to accept innocent-sounding propositions which I think will involve very large numbers of people in very considerable inconvenience. She spoke about the minority who had to be tolerated and it occurred to me there is a very good reason why her request should not be acceded to. I can imagine no more useful citizen than the man or woman who goes to a cinema and smokes, because in doing so he or she makes a very useful double contribution to the


Revenue, which would be considerably affected if the hon. Lady's plea were accepted.
People would either smoke less or not go to the cinema. One of the reasons I do not go to the theatre as often as I should like to is that I am deprived of the opportunity of smoking while listening to what would be a good play but what becomes a bad play to me by reason of the fact that I cannot smoke at the same time.
For those reasons, and because we have quite enough regulations as it is, I am reluctant to lend my support to any further restriction of the libery of the subject. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will be able to assure the House that the danger of fire in cinemas, which is the only pretext upon which this matter could be discussed, is so remote as to warrant its exclusion from our consideration.

Mr. Baxter: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to the question of revenue, and I appreciate that he has raised it sincerely; but is it not a fact that this Government is constantly trying to cut down our dollar expenditure? Tobacco represents an enormous dollar expenditure. Therefore, anybody who does not smoke is saving dollars.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Yes, but there are many other ways which I could suggest in which we might save dollars. One way of saving dollars would be by excluding American films from this country altogether. That would represent quite a useful saving in dollars. If it is a question of saving dollars, I could put forward many other suggestions, but that would be out of order at the moment.
I think we might leave the situation as it is. I am sure the cinema exhibitors would be strongly opposed to any restriction of the kind which has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South. We are being inundated with literature from all kinds of bodies, including the cinematograph exhibitors, telling us of the difficult plight in which they find themselves and asking us to exert ourselves in their favour in the forthcoming discussions on the Finance Bill. I cannot believe that they would welcome the restriction that has been requested by my hon. Friend.
I hope the Under-Secretary will not allow his exceedingly good nature to be imposed upon tonight, that on this issue he will maintain a firm line which will reassure the vast majority of people in the country, the cinema exhibitors, the film producers and all those connected with ancillary activities, and will make them realise that the menace which has been advocated by my hon. Friend is not to be entertained and that the Home Office know exactly what to do about the whole matter.

8.4 p.m.

Brigadier Clarke: I was hoping to speak on the subject of smoking as well as the fire risk to cinemas and theatres because I thought that was the subject of this Motion. I feel that the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), has been rather jockeyed on to the fire risk aspect of this subject as opposed to the nuisance of smoking which I felt she had at the back of her mind far more strongly than the question of fire risk.
If a cinema is reasonably filled and has, say, 550 people out of the 600 it could house, I feel there is no great fire risk. If someone starts a fire there is a bit of a smell, and if there is something burning someone stamps on it. That puts out that little local fire. Presumably, owners of cinemas have attendants and people who patrol the cinemas after the performance. There are also fire doors and similar precautions which are all governed by the Home Office. When I go to the cinema, I never feel that I am running a grave risk of being burned to death. As for the cinema building, I feel this is more the worry of Mr. Rank and the other cinema owners than my worry.
On the other hand, I like going to the cinema and shutting my eyes and smoking. I feel that the liberty of the subject should allow one to go and do this if one wants to, and I am surprised to hear Conservative Members suggest one more curtailment of our liberties. I speak for freedom, and I feel that if the cinema managers really thought that there was some advantage in prohibiting smoking in cinemas because of the fire risk, they would have one Odeon where smoking was not allowed and another where it was allowed. The cinema manager is the best judge of which of those two cinemas would draw


the bigger crowd, given the same theatrical performances in both. I should have thought that this matter was one of choice for the general public.
The only point on which I should like the Home Office to intervene is to try and see that the ventilation of these places is better so that the smoke does not hang about and inconvenience those who do not like this rather dirty habit in which so many of us indulge. I think that perhaps the attendance in this House might be almost as good as that of a good cinema if we were allowed to smoke in here, but that would be sacrilege and we are not allowed to do it. I certainly think we would get more Members here if smoking was allowed. After all, 600 guardsmen have been in here to test the ventilation, and it was found to be satisfactory.
I think the theatre presents a different point. Most of the theatres in this country are old. There have not been many built in the last 15 or 20 years, and they have not got the same air-cleansing systems as cinemas have. Also there are live performers, and when there is a live performer on the stage trying to sing or speak, he is affected by the fumes coming up from the front. I do not sing very well and it does not affect me much, but I can understand that people on the stage might object to singing in a smoky atmosphere.
I can see no reason why we should not have whatever the public most require in the cinemas. I am sure the cinema managers would have cinemas in which smoking was prohibited if they thought they could fill them. This matter should be left to the free choice of the public and to the owners of the cinemas, and there should be no Government interference.

8.8 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) was good enough to inform me of the points she intended to raise tonight. I am particularly sorry that the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) has had to go back to his dinner, because his support was of the most extreme kind. I think he spoke not only with great interest and knowledge of this subject but also with great grace. I think that his miming of a woman smoking in a

theatre was something few of us could undertake at such short notice. On the other hand, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Colonel Clarke) want the Home Office to take a firm line and resist my hon. Friend's request.
I shall begin by dealing with these questions. First, what power is there to prohibit smoking, and how far is it exercised, and secondly, dealing with the merits, should smoking be prohibited? The position with regard to the power of prohibiting smoking is this. In the theatre it is governed by the Theatres Act, 1843. Under that Act theatres must be licensed for the public performance of stage plays, and their licensing is the responsibility of the county council or the county borough council. In the case of Central London and Windsor, the responsibility is that of the Lord Chamberlain.
The Home Secretary has no power at all to interfere with the discretion of those councils or of the Lord Chamberlain. Furthermore, in the case of theatres—and I am dealing with theatres entirely for the moment—the Home Secretary has no power, such as he has in respect of cinemas, to make regulations for securing safety. I am not saying that the Home Office washes its hands of this problem; it does not. The Home Office issues and keeps up-to-date a Manual of Safety Requirements in Places of Public Entertainment, and this guidance is widely followed by the licensing authorities.
Up to the time of the 1914–18 war, when smoking was considered socially incorrect in many places, the Lord Chamberlain used to attach to his licences a condition that there should be no smoking in the auditorium. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South, referred to a date during the war—I think she mentioned 1915—and it is a fact that at the request of the theatre licensees, starting from that time, there have been for many years applications to strike out this condition, which the Lord Chamberlain has always allowed, so that today there are only five out of 41 theatres where the managements prefer to have no smoking. It is possible under the present law for the licensing authorities to require as a condition of their licences that there


should be no smoking in the auditorium. But there is always the point that the courts may, having regard to the present social views on smoking, hold that such a requirement was invalid as not being reasonable.
The position of the cinema is a little different. Under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, cinemas are licensed by the county or county borough councils, who may delegate that duty if they want, just as can the county or county borough councils in the case of theatres. As in the case of theatres, they have the right to impose licensing conditions, and the Home Secretary has no power to interfere with their discretion. But there is this very great difference: The Home Secretary has power under that Act to make regulations for securing safety, and there are regulations in force which must be observed in every cinema in the country, in addition to any conditions which the local licensing authorities may impose.
The Home Secretary's regulations, for instance, prohibit smoking in projection rooms and in places in a cinema where films are handled; but there is no prohibition of smoking in the auditorium, and, so far as I know, no licensing authority prohibits smoking in the auditorium under the terms of their licences. As in the case of the theatres, it might be held invalid if they did so.
We now come to the point whether smoking should be prohibited, first of all, because of the risk of fire. I should like to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Coventry, South. There is no question that smoking is one of the main causes of fire in all kinds of premises, and is responsible for about three fires a week in places of public entertainment, but, as the hon. Lady pointed out, nearly all these fires are easily detected and easily put out and the damage is very small indeed. In this country as a whole, fire precautions in places of public entertainment are exceedingly good. It is the considered opinion of His Majesty's Inspectors of Fire Services that smoking brings very little added risk of fire when an audience is present and very little danger to the public.
Should smoking be prohibited because it causes discomfort? This is a much wider point which is a little beyond Government responsibility. It may assist the House

a little to get some idea of this problem when I say that in the Home Office—and the experience of the London County Council is the same—we have received only the most occasional representations that smoking should be abolished in places of public entertainment. The fact that in London—and this was a point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West, and others—it is left to the discretion of managements whether to permit smoking or not. That there is no prohibition on smoking in the majority of theatres, suggests that the managements feel that most of their patrons want to smoke during performances.
I do not think that smokers would readily give way in any struggle denying them the right to smoke. The privilege of smoking has been won only after a great struggle. In the 17th century people in Western Europe were flogged, excommunicated and even had their heads cut off for smoking. A former Member from Devonshire, Sir Walter Raleigh, who introduced smoking, when he was ultimately executed—he did not lose his head because of smoking—made one of his last wishes a desire for a pipe of tobacco.
Support for smoking has been very strong in Parliamentary assemblies, and it would take a great deal to turn the clock back in any way against modern customs in this matter. James I condemned smoking as a branch of the sin of drunkenness, which is the root of all sins. He said:
But herein is not only a great vanity, but a great contempt of God's good giftes, that the sweetness of man's breath, being a good gifte of God, should be wilfully corrupted by this stinking smoke.
Those are hard but regal words, and I, not being a monarch but an Under-Secretary of State, could not possibly go as far as James I. But I can say, as a non-smoker—and in these matters I must choose my words with great care—that people feel violently on this. It is said a woman is only a woman, but a cigar is a good smoke. There is the story of Vice-President Marshall who presided over a long debate in the United States Senate. He was constantly hearing one senator after another saying: "What this country really needs," and he made the classic remark, "What this country really needs is a good five cent cigar."
I say to the hon. Lady and to her supporters that I have paid the greatest attention to her argument. I have great sympathy with it, but choosing my words carefully as I have to do as an Under-Secretary, there would not appear to be any justification for the Home Secretary exercising whatever power he may have to prohibit smoking or to advise local authorities to do so.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Reader Harris: I should like to make one suggestion before the House rises. The statement made by the Under-Secretary will be received with relief by some sections of the populace. As secretary of the Fire Officers' Association, I am not altogether unassociated with fire prevention provisions, and the risk of fire in most places of public entertainment is practically nil. There are very few places of public entertainment in this country which do not need to be burned down every 100 years in order that they can be rebuilt with all the latest modern conveniences, though I do not suggest for one moment that there should be any loss of life in such burnings.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), was very gallant in bringing this subject before the House, but there are plenty of other places where

smoking ought to be prohibited on the ground of public safety, such as underground trains.
On the question of inconvenience caused by smoking, no doubt it must cause inconvenience to some people, although it enables people like the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) to sit through plays. When he said that in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) remarked to me: "What a judgment on the arts." I would add "What arts," when you need a cigarette sometimes to enable you to sit through them.
If smoking is an inconvenience to people in theatres and cinemas, would it not be possible for the managers of those places to set aside a part where smokers could sit, and to have another part where people could sit who did not want to smoke? That is done in dining cars on railways and in many other places. After all, one cigarette or one pipe in a cinema does not pollute the whole of the atmosphere. It only annoys two or three people sitting near the smoker. It might be possible to set aside some part of the building for smokers.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes past Eight o'Clock.